Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    11:16 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Wealth Distribution Is Good For The Economy Back to Topics
SemiSteve

Champion Author
Tampa

Posts:19,843
Points:458,265
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 19, 2013 7:53:31 PM

When wealth is spread out among many people they have increased discretionary spending power. When they buy things it helps the economy.

Conversely, when wealth is concentrated in great amounts held by a relatively few number of people there is a lack of wealth distribution; and most people have little discretionary spending power. They don't buy as much; so the economy slows down. That is what had been happening for the last 35 years.

It is better for the economy for most people to be doing fairly well than it is for a few to be doing extremely well and most people just getting by. Therefore, in order to improve our economy we should be looking for ways to reduce wealth inequality.

Raising the minimum wage is one way to ensure that the lower paid workers have more buying power. Another way would be to limit the income of the executives of large corporations to a multiple of their average workers income. Breaking up the largest corporations and banks so that there is more competition in markets would also help. Increased unionization also reduces wealth inequality. It would be very beneficial to take away the special treatment the biggest banks get from the Federal Reserve and allow market forces to work naturally.

"The primary mechanism for uploading wealth is debt-based creation of new money under the system of fractional reserve lending under the central control of the private bank-owned Federal Reserve, which supplies money, at interest, to the U.S. Government. Commercial banks create electronic entry money when they make loans, typically up to ten times the amount in their reserves. This contributes to cyclical asset hyperinflation bubbles and busts, in which the Big Five money-center banks are key players and from which the super-wealthy emerge relatively wealthier. This has resulted in a virtually permanent super-elite."

"In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[9] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%.[8][9][10]"

"A 2011 study found that US citizens across the political spectrum dramatically underestimate the current US wealth inequality and would prefer a far more egalitarian distribution of wealth.[7]"

wiki: Wealth inequality in the United States

[7.] ^ Norton, M.I.; Ariely, D. (2011). "Building a Better America – One Wealth Quintile at a Time" (PDF). Perspectives on Psychological Science 6: 9–12.

[Edited by: SemiSteve at 2/19/2013 7:54:46 PM EST]
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,528
Points:583,385
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Dec 21, 2014 10:32:55 PM

"One just has to be resourceful. There are many ways to save money and live on a low income."

So you also don't understand the meaning of 'disposable income'?
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,175
Points:4,670,775
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Dec 21, 2014 8:55:05 AM

rjhenn, "I wasn't thinking of any groups in particular, just that having more income gives you more possibilities. Not everyone is going to make good choices with those increased possibilities, but for everyone, increased income means increased possibilities."

But it is those good choices in the beginning that increases the possibilities to make more and save more money.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,175
Points:4,670,775
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Dec 21, 2014 8:53:19 AM

Sorry SemiSteve, for the misspelling, it was not intentional. I was posting from the tablet.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,175
Points:4,670,775
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Dec 21, 2014 8:29:25 AM

SensItive, that's the lifestyle they choose to live. They spend where they think is important and save if they think it is important.
Their freedom to choose.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,083
Points:2,881,270
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 21, 2014 3:08:53 AM

SemiSteve - "Perhaps we are thinking of different groups. I consider 'lower earners' to be the 10-15% in the lowest income brackets. Higher earners would then be the top 10-15%. The rest I would consider 'middle earners.' Is that what you had in mind?"

I wasn't thinking of any groups in particular, just that having more income gives you more possibilities. Not everyone is going to make good choices with those increased possibilities, but for everyone, increased income means increased possibilities.
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,769
Points:47,100
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Dec 20, 2014 1:59:40 PM

<<There is a house in our neighborhood that all the responsible locals talk about. The old owners died and left it to the 'adult' children who came and moved in. The place immediately went downhill.>>

This happens frequently when renters suddenly become owners due to EZ Credit, owner financing, gifts, inheritances etc.
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,769
Points:47,100
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Dec 20, 2014 1:32:52 PM

Many of my lower income tenants could afford to buy their own homes, however they're not interested, they don't want the work and responsibility of owning a home and/or don't want to limit their mobility.

They like the fact that myself, my property managers, workers and subs take care of most everything.

More and more have to move frequently these days due to poor job security, so they don't want to be saddled with a home which will restrict their mobility.

Many of my tenants and other locals receive large rent subsidies, so they're so spoiled by dirt cheap rents that they're not interested in owning.

Saving is easier than ever for more and more poor and low income workers since they receive so many welfare benefits.

Since they have few expenses not covered by welfare benefits more and more of their cash benefits, paychecks and under-the-table income is disposable income.


[Edited by: MarkJames at 12/20/2014 1:33:08 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,843
Points:458,265
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 20, 2014 10:23:33 AM

One can save and be somewhat comfortable on a low wage job, but home ownership remains greatly elusive to that group. Most in that group end up living in trailers (without owning any land), rentals, in high crime areas, or out in the country away from most conveniences and services (sort of like going back in time).

There is a house in our neighborhood that all the responsible locals talk about. The old owners died and left it to the 'adult' children who came and moved in. The place immediately went downhill. The yard is all overgrown, there are always 4-5 cars there, repeated mechanical projects on them, sometimes jacked up for weeks on stands. They smoke. They have tattoos and go around shirtless and unshaven. They had an open trailer full of junk sitting outside for over a year, another one parked at a bank-owned vacant property across the street. And for a while the garage door was busted half open so all their piles of junk in the garage was visible from the street. And they also ran a generator 24-7 for a few weeks when they couldn't pay the power bill. Finally code enforcement had to be called in and the act was cleaned up a bit.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,843
Points:458,265
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 20, 2014 9:56:36 AM

SemiSteve - "I think those who earn at higher levels are more likely to be fiscally responsible than those who earn at lower levels."

rjh: "Agreeing with Weasle, earning at higher levels just gives many people more latitude to be fiscally irresponsible."

Perhaps we are thinking of different groups. I consider 'lower earners' to be the 10-15% in the lowest income brackets. Higher earners would then be the top 10-15%. The rest I would consider 'middle earners.' Is that what you had in mind?

[Edited by: SemiSteve at 12/20/2014 9:57:26 AM EST]
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,175
Points:4,670,775
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Dec 20, 2014 7:02:30 AM

Weaslespit, ""It can be done, by living below ones means and investing, you can "gain wealth"."

You can't save what you don't have. The less you earn, the less disposable income you have to save when living below your means."

One just has to be resourceful. There are many ways to save money and live on a low income.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,083
Points:2,881,270
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 20, 2014 12:45:25 AM

PopcornPirate - "If you are in a dead end minimum wage job for more then 2 years. Then you need to sit down & learn some new skills to move on to another higher paying job. If not then you are dumber then you think."

Largely true. The problem is that often those "other higher paying job"s are underpaid for what they accomplish.
Profile Pic
PopcornPirate
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:5,668
Points:1,565,195
Joined:Nov 2006
Message Posted: Dec 19, 2014 10:11:33 AM

"You can't save what you don't have. The less you earn, the less disposable income you have to save when living below your means. "

If you are in a dead end minimum wage job for more then 2 years. Then you need to sit down & learn some new skills to move on to another higher paying job. If not then you are dumber then you think.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,528
Points:583,385
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Dec 19, 2014 10:00:22 AM

"It can be done, by living below ones means and investing, you can "gain wealth"."

You can't save what you don't have. The less you earn, the less disposable income you have to save when living below your means.

"Not needing government support is something to be proud of nowadays."

I see it that way as well, unfortunately it seems as though this opinion is eroding a bit.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,175
Points:4,670,775
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Dec 19, 2014 5:30:23 AM

WeasleSpit, ""That means no big screen TV for a while, no smart phone, no tattoos when you don't have enough money for food and shelter..."

Which doesn't mean that they will be able to retire at 62, much less ever be wealthy. It just means they won't need government support - still a good thing, but hardly along the same lines as gaining wealth."

It can be done, by living below ones means and investing, you can "gain wealth".

Not needing government support is something to be proud of nowadays.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,083
Points:2,881,270
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 18, 2014 7:38:48 PM

SemiSteve - "I think those who earn at higher levels are more likely to be fiscally responsible than those who earn at lower levels."

Agreeing with Weasle, earning at higher levels just gives many people more latitude to be fiscally irresponsible.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,528
Points:583,385
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Dec 18, 2014 10:07:20 AM

"I think those who earn at higher levels are more likely to be fiscally responsible than those who earn at lower levels."

I have seen just as many people with higher incomes lose everything due to overspending as I have those with little income... Sports athletes are a prime, if not unfortunate, example of this.

Close friends of ours just tapped their 401K's so that they could build their 'dream house'.

SMH

I would argue that in fact the opposite is true, that those who earn at lower levels are more likely to be more fiscally responsible, since they have such little margin for error. They key word there is 'earning' - those strictly on the dole certainly don't apply. The harder you work for it, the harder I should think one guards it.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,843
Points:458,265
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 18, 2014 9:59:57 AM

"Unfortunately there is no correlation between salary and fiscal responsibility... "

I would have to disagree on that.

I think those who earn at higher levels are more likely to be fiscally responsible than those who earn at lower levels.

If the lower earners were as fiscally responsible as higher earners we would not see so many on government assistance. We would not see such a rampant proliferation of 'buy here pay here' and 'Title Loan' and 'Payday Loan' places exploiting the tremendous lack of fiscal responsibility. We would not see so many Cadillacs and Lexuses pulling up outside the welfare offices, or parked next to trailers in trailer parks.

I think when people figure out how to, and manage to do what it takes to, earn well they tend to also understand how much they have accomplished and desire not to blow it all quickly. They wish to preserve what they have done so they can reap lasting rewards rather than lose it all too quick.

Those who believe they will never amount to much tend to disrespect any money they get, gravitate towards instant gratification, blow through it quickly, and never amount to much. For these are the ones who covet the trappings of wealth, but do not understand the underpinnings of it.
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,769
Points:47,100
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Dec 18, 2014 9:34:41 AM

<<One can have greater wealth on lower income if they live below their means. That means no big screen TV for a while, no smart phone, no tattoos when you don't have enough money for food and shelter...>>

.

.When I evict many tenants for non payment of rent, most have multiple big screen televisions, multiple computers, upper tier cable, upper tier broadband, multiple smart phones per household - and enough other non necessities and excesses that the total greatly exceeds their delinquent rents and/or delinquent electric, gas, propane, heating oil bills.

Many poor and low income individuals and households would be well off financially if they simply wasted "less money" on non necessities, excesses, disposable junk, services and depreciating assets.

They could still waste money on cigarettes, beer, liquor, weed, scratch-offs, fast food, take-out, delivery, soda, candy, chips, prepared foods, energy drinks, bottled water, convenience store shopping, taxis, tattoos, pets, rent-to-own furniture/appliances/electronics, buy here pay here vehicle financing, cable, broadband, satellite, smart phones, prepaid minutes, big screen televisions, gaming consoles, games, tablets, laptops - too much to list.

They'd simply have to spend less, consume less often, trade down to lower priced alternatives, shop for better prices etc.

Many are far too undisciplined to totally eliminate most of their bad habits, however they may have enough willpower to reduce the frequency and expense of some of their many bad financial habits.

This is something I've run into frequently when trying to help people with nutrition, exercise, weightlifitng and powerlifting. Most aren't disciplined enough to stick to their plans, so you have to let them cheat often, otherwise they'll wash out.

When it comes to undisciplined types "less bad" is often the best they can achieve.


[Edited by: MarkJames at 12/18/2014 9:35:18 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,528
Points:583,385
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Dec 18, 2014 9:25:57 AM

"And you have been reminded repeatedly that greater income usually does lead to greater wealth, nstdr.."

Which is true, the 'odds' are certainly more in your favor.

"That means no big screen TV for a while, no smart phone, no tattoos when you don't have enough money for food and shelter..."

Which doesn't mean that they will be able to retire at 62, much less ever be wealthy. It just means they won't need government support - still a good thing, but hardly along the same lines as gaining wealth.

"As WeasleSpit mentions, fiscal responsibility is more important among the lower income people than the higher income people."

It is equally important. Everybody should be fiscally responsible as everybody is susceptible to desire and greed. Plenty of millionaires have had to declare bankruptcy because they lived beyond their means.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,175
Points:4,670,775
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Dec 17, 2014 6:13:24 PM

SemiSteve, "And you have been reminded repeatedly that greater income usually does lead to greater wealth, nstdr.."

As WeasleSpit just pointed out:

Unfortunately there is no correlation between salary and fiscal responsibility...

One can have greater wealth on lower income if they live below their means. That means no big screen TV for a while, no smart phone, no tattoos when you don't have enough money for food and shelter...

As WeasleSpit mentions, fiscal responsibility is more important among the lower income people than the higher income people.

Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,175
Points:4,670,775
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Dec 17, 2014 6:09:10 PM

Weaslespit, "Unfortunately there is no correlation between salary and fiscal responsibility... "

This is true.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,528
Points:583,385
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Dec 17, 2014 3:04:12 PM

"Not at all surprised, but of course not all guitar players playing here and there for $50 a night under the table are on the dole, some have day jobs. ;)"

;)

Unfortunately there is no correlation between salary and fiscal responsibility...
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:16,657
Points:2,399,210
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 17, 2014 1:11:50 PM

Not at all surprised, but of course not all guitar players playing here and there for $50 a night under the table are on the dole, some have day jobs. ;)
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,528
Points:583,385
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Dec 17, 2014 1:07:41 PM

"--Probably most of them, as 6 figure earners tend to be much more fiscally responsible than a guitar player would be living on the dole and playing a gig here and there for $50 a night under the table."

I think you'd be surprised which of those two is more fiscally responsible...
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,528
Points:583,385
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Dec 17, 2014 1:06:17 PM

"But when I pressed you an others on wealth distribution, so more people have some wealth, you ran right to income distribution..."

No, income inequality - a concept you continually prove over and over with your repeating strawman that you do not yet grasp...
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:16,657
Points:2,399,210
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 17, 2014 1:00:23 PM

Steve: <<<"How many on the dole have 401K accounts or own their own home?">>>

--How many on the dole have a job? People with a 401K and/or own a home typically are working for a living.

<<<"How many 6 figure earners do?">>>

--Probably most of them, as 6 figure earners tend to be much more fiscally responsible than a guitar player would be living on the dole and playing a gig here and there for $50 a night under the table.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,843
Points:458,265
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 17, 2014 12:39:53 PM

And you have been reminded repeatedly that greater income usually does lead to greater wealth, nstdr...

How many on the dole have 401K accounts or own their own home?

How many 6 figure earners do?

Stop cherry picking and look at the big picture.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,175
Points:4,670,775
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Dec 17, 2014 11:33:02 AM

Waslespit, "There never has been, nor will there ever be, income equality. That has not been said by anybody here, save for your own strawman."

But when I pressed you an others on wealth distribution, so more people have some wealth, you ran right to income distribution. In fact you correlated wealth with income.

I and others have shown to you that they do not necessarily correlate with one another, that one can gain wealth simply by living below ones means.

Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,528
Points:583,385
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Dec 17, 2014 10:41:44 AM

"You guys are calling for "wealth distribution" but admittedly mean income distribution/equality."

Have you not read 'any' of the posts that have been made in response to your incorrect definition applied?

There never has been, nor will there ever be, income equality. That has not been said by anybody here, save for your own strawman.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,175
Points:4,670,775
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Dec 17, 2014 10:26:49 AM

SemiSteve, "It is not a matter of who should be determining if over-earners are working hard enough. It is the overall effect of allowing tremendously powerful figures to manipulate the system for self-benefit.

We are on a trajectory which, if allowed to go too far, will destroy our nation..."

Ohh... so we need to take more from the rich in order to save the country???

Should we do the same on a global scale?

If you say yes, then you better be prepared to start taking home a lot less money because you are an "over-earner" compared to some people that earn a dollar a day.

Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,175
Points:4,670,775
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Dec 17, 2014 10:24:05 AM

Stop counting WeasleSpit. Not abandoning anything.

You guys are calling for "wealth distribution" but admittedly mean income distribution/equality. Again, you only want to push your "income equality" onto other people. Why? Is it because they earn more than you? Is it because you somehow think they just sit around at a desk all day and don't do any "real work"?

rjhenn, "nstrdnvstr - "Who should determine if one "doesn't work enough or do a good enough job"?"

Apparently you believe that the one doing the work should determine his own worth, but only if he's the boss to begin with."

Most of the time the market decides these things. Pay is usually based on what the market bears for particular skills according to the competition for particular jobs.

Why do you think that a cashier in oil country in North Dakota gets paid more than a cashier in other parts of the country?
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,528
Points:583,385
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Dec 17, 2014 8:33:02 AM

I noticed nstrdnvstr abandoned his 'equal pay' assertion again. Counting down the days until he posts the same thing...
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,083
Points:2,881,270
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2014 7:18:33 PM

nstrdnvstr - "Who should determine if one "doesn't work enough or do a good enough job"?"

Apparently you believe that the one doing the work should determine his own worth, but only if he's the boss to begin with.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,843
Points:458,265
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2014 5:50:50 PM

It is not a matter of who should be determining if over-earners are working hard enough. It is the overall effect of allowing tremendously powerful figures to manipulate the system for self-benefit.

We are on a trajectory which, if allowed to go too far, will destroy our nation.

Something must change or we will end up with either a revolt or national bankruptcy. Do you think either of those should be allowed to happen when we could avert it by making changes now?
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,175
Points:4,670,775
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2014 5:37:57 PM

rjhenn, ""And those that are allegedly "skimming" don't work?"

Many of them don't. Many more don't work enough, or do a good enough job, to justify the amount they 'earn'."

Who should determine if one "doesn't work enough or do a good enough job"?
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,083
Points:2,881,270
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2014 1:27:21 PM

nstrdnvstr - "That is what I said."

Not hardly.

"You call it "slimming", others call it earning."

Of course. Those who are skimming want you to think that they're earning.

"And those that are allegedly "skimming" don't work?"

Many of them don't. Many more don't work enough, or do a good enough job, to justify the amount they 'earn'.

"Isn't that still "income inequality"?"

You're still thinking in absolutes. Income inequality is reality. Excessive income inequality is harmful.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,083
Points:2,881,270
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2014 1:24:07 PM

Cirdan - "No, that migration is essential because their birth rates are below death rates and their population in both aging and shrinking. They needed people to do the work and, of course, pay taxes. Pyramid schemes always need new suckers to pay off the old."

Must be why so many of those immigrants are unemployed and on welfare.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,528
Points:583,385
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2014 9:51:23 AM

"Isn't that still "income inequality"?"

Which is what you are failing to understand. There is, and always has been, "income inequality". The problem that has been repeated and explained to you ad nauseam is that the gap in this inequality has increased exponentially over the past 30+ years.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,175
Points:4,670,775
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2014 5:46:16 AM

rjhenn, "More black-and-white thinking. To you, it's either income inequality or income equality, with no concept that there might be degrees of income inequality..."

Isn't that still "income inequality"?
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,175
Points:4,670,775
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2014 5:44:43 AM

rjhenn, "nstrdnvstr - "So it is true, you want to be generous with other people's money."

No, we just want those skimming off the top to skim less, leaving more for the actual workers."

That is what I said.

You call it "slimming", others call it earning. And those that are allegedly "skimming" don't work?
Profile Pic
Cirdan
Champion Author Nevada

Posts:2,619
Points:141,405
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2014 12:12:03 AM

"A lot of that is a result of the massive, and largely uncontrolled, immigration they've allowed over that time period."

No, that migration is essential because their birth rates are below death rates and their population in both aging and shrinking. They needed people to do the work and, of course, pay taxes. Pyramid schemes always need new suckers to pay off the old.

During economic recessions they turn against immigrants, same as Americans do, but in boom times, they are essential.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,843
Points:458,265
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 15, 2014 8:29:04 PM

Pirate: "There are plenty of smart people that have made a successful life for themselves. Then there are the smart people that have no common sense & make bad choices. It may have been the logical thing to do at the time. But the wrong decision to get ahead in life. I have seen many smart people go nowhere due to being arrogant or shy or just inept at everyday menial stuff."

Sounds like we are on the same page here.

I will concede that the more education one has, the more likely they are to be successful. But I must diverge when it comes to claiming that the more you know the more you earn.

I don't really know much about how much the Pope is worth. I never got the impression it was a high paying job. Sure they are pampered but I thought it was all really owned by the Vatican.

I'll agree with you in a general sense but not a strict one.

Education certainly enhances earnings. But there is no quantifiable incremental correlation. Plenty of college grads earning less than drop-outs.

It's more up to the individual and a myriad of factors in addition to education or IQ. Luck, personable nature, the crowd you run in, choices made, etc. All play a part.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,083
Points:2,881,270
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 15, 2014 2:22:26 AM

Cirdan - "- Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
- Cuba
- Venezuela, where socialism has led to shortages of everything, even breast implants
- N Korea
- The old Warsaw Pact nations, before they became free."

And just how are/were any of those any kind of hybrid of capitalism and socialism?

"The great untold story is how the European Welfare State is collapsing in front of our eyes. 30 years of growth significantly below that of the US and growing social splits between baby boomers, who the rules greatly benefit, and the milennials who are greatly screwed (massive unemployment, no future)."

A lot of that is a result of the massive, and largely uncontrolled, immigration they've allowed over that time period. Something that's damaging our economy as well.

"Don't talk about China. I started doing business there over 15 years ago and the "Communists" there are the toughest capitalists in the world. Much more so than the US."

That's because they're used to exploiting their workforce.
Profile Pic
Cirdan
Champion Author Nevada

Posts:2,619
Points:141,405
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Dec 15, 2014 12:34:46 AM

"What empirical evidence?"

- Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
- Cuba
- Venezuela, where socialism has led to shortages of everything, even breast implants
- N Korea
- The old Warsaw Pact nations, before they became free.

The great untold story is how the European Welfare State is collapsing in front of our eyes. 30 years of growth significantly below that of the US and growing social splits between baby boomers, who the rules greatly benefit, and the milennials who are greatly screwed (massive unemployment, no future).

Don't talk about China. I started doing business there over 15 years ago and the "Communists" there are the toughest capitalists in the world. Much more so than the US.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,528
Points:583,385
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Dec 14, 2014 10:39:24 AM

"More black-and-white thinking. To you, it's either income inequality or income equality, with no concept that there might be degrees of income inequality, and that somewhat less income inequality would preserve the incentive you attribute solely to "getting rich", while strengthening the economy."

There doesn't seem to be any possibility that he will ever grasp this concept, given his repeated use of said strawman.
Profile Pic
Passer
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:19,692
Points:2,340,450
Joined:Jan 2004
Message Posted: Dec 14, 2014 2:07:28 AM

RJ,

You are 100% correct here.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,083
Points:2,881,270
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 14, 2014 1:54:24 AM

nstrdnvstr - "So it is true, you want to be generous with other people's money."

No, we just want those skimming off the top to skim less, leaving more for the actual workers.

"If you don't want income inequality, what is the other choice? Income equality???"

More black-and-white thinking. To you, it's either income inequality or income equality, with no concept that there might be degrees of income inequality, and that somewhat less income inequality would preserve the incentive you attribute solely to "getting rich", while strengthening the economy.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,083
Points:2,881,270
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 14, 2014 1:51:17 AM

Cirdan - "Empirical evidence suggests otherwise."

What empirical evidence?
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,175
Points:4,670,775
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Dec 13, 2014 1:27:03 PM

""Ready to trade every other paycheck when you are!"

Are you being intentionally obtuse seeing as how this misnomer has been addressed, to you, no fewer than a dozen times?"So it is true, you want to be generous with other people's money. You guys always sat it the top 1%, or the top 0.1% that you want to share the money they earned with others, but never your own with people that earn less than you.

How generous of you!

If you don't want income inequality, what is the other choice? Income equality???
Profile Pic
Cirdan
Champion Author Nevada

Posts:2,619
Points:141,405
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Dec 13, 2014 11:02:46 AM

"Capitalism has its ugly sides just like any other 'pure' ideology which is why a hybrid of these (ie Socialism, et al) is far stronger than any single type on its own."

Empirical evidence suggests otherwise.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,528
Points:583,385
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Dec 12, 2014 1:07:36 PM

"All it does is demonstrate his complete lack of any actual counterargument."

Indeed.
Post a reply Back to Topics