Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    4:08 AM

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:19,285
Points:437,885
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
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,285
Points:437,885
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2014 10:51:30 AM

Individual examples and statistics may differ; and often do.

In which demographic are the greatest percentage of bankruptcies recorded?

And in which income group is the ratio of net worth to income level the greatest?

[Edited by: SemiSteve at 10/21/2014 10:52:57 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,401
Points:543,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2014 10:31:51 AM

"Living beyond one's means is far more likely when the means are meager than when the means are excessive."

I dunno about that. If you have a choice to get a massage or eating... lol

I think it is easier to live beyond one's means when the means are excessive as the means give access to loans, etc which can continue to fuel the spree - until the inevitable collapse.

Then you simply declare bankruptcy and become a 'normal working stiff' again.

Teresa and Joe Giudice are a prime example of that.

[Edited by: Weaslespit at 10/21/2014 10:32:12 AM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,285
Points:437,885
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2014 10:14:11 AM

Living beyond one's means is far more likely when the means are meager than when the means are excessive.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,401
Points:543,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2014 9:48:09 AM

"Whoa, a zinger from Buzz! 7;-]"

Lol, thanks for quoting - I woulda missed-out on that one!
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,401
Points:543,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2014 9:47:04 AM

"Weaslespit, I see you cannot answer the question. How are "they" taking money from the workers"

Until you educate yourself on income inequality, you will continue to not understand the answer being provided.

"It seems that you don't understand that higher income does not necessarily mean more wealth."

Rather, it seems you don't understand the term 'odds'.

"You also do not understand that the life choices one makes is a very large factor in income and wealth."

Strange, since I posted this in response to those who do indeed have income and squander it;

"Living beyond ones means is a choice, not a certainty..."
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,285
Points:437,885
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2014 9:40:27 AM

SemiSteve, "The point being that wealth inequity has become extreme and it is hurting the economy. For a few to become fabulously rich many must be made poor.

Dancing all around this fact does not change it."

nstrdnvstr: "That is clearly a myth.

The economy is not grows and shrinks, there is no set "pie size" for the economy."

More dancing. I see you still refuse to accepted that both income and wealth inequity have grown more extreme; and this has hurt our economy.

Do you not acknowledge that there is this metric?

And do you also deny it has increased?

And do you disagree with history which shows every time this has occurred in the past it has lead to upheaval?

How about some straight answers instead of the tired two-step...
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,310
Points:2,797,470
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 20, 2014 2:05:30 PM

BuzzLOL - ". True... generally, the less conscience one has, the more money they make..."

Whoa, a zinger from Buzz! 7;-]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,310
Points:2,797,470
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 20, 2014 2:04:45 PM

nstrdnvstr - "Again, how are they "taking" it? Are they going into their bank accounts in the middle of the night?"

No, they take it before it can reach their bank accounts.

"It seems that you don't understand that higher income does not necessarily mean more wealth."

Oh, we've all demonstrated that we understand that. What you don't appear to understand is that higher income means more _potential_ for more wealth.

And a healthier economy.

"You also do not understand that the life choices one makes is a very large factor in income and wealth."

Something else we've all demonstrated an understanding of.
Profile Pic
BuzzLOL
Champion Author Toledo

Posts:4,956
Points:57,305
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Oct 20, 2014 10:54:05 AM

.
< nstrdnstr: "You also do not understand that the life choices one makes is a very large factor in income and wealth. >

. True... generally, the less conscience one has, the more money they make...
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,321
Points:2,953,045
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Oct 20, 2014 10:36:32 AM

nstrdnvstr - "Buzz, so is paying worker more than their job is worth also "bad"? "

It's horrible. It leads to the subhuman creatures commonly known as "lawyers".
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,749
Points:4,581,605
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Oct 20, 2014 10:35:02 AM

Weaslespit, I see you cannot answer the question. How are "they" taking money from the workers?

It seems that you don't understand that higher income does not necessarily mean more wealth.

You also do not understand that the life choices one makes is a very large factor in income and wealth.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,749
Points:4,581,605
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Oct 20, 2014 10:31:17 AM

Buzz, so is paying worker more than their job is worth also "bad"?
Profile Pic
BuzzLOL
Champion Author Toledo

Posts:4,956
Points:57,305
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Oct 20, 2014 9:15:43 AM

.
. Giving people (capable of working) money for doing nothing is psychologically wrong and bad for the world... as is overpaying the 'idle rich', as well...
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,401
Points:543,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 20, 2014 9:03:46 AM

"There is no mention if income inequality in the title of this topic."

Your comment is only further evidence that you don't understand income inequality nor the effect it has...

A reversal in the income inequality gap 'will' result in more wealth being distributed.

"Again, how are they "taking" it? Are they going into their bank accounts in the middle of the night?"

Again;

"No, because that would also be wealth 're'-distribution, which this topic is not about."

[Edited by: Weaslespit at 10/20/2014 9:04:31 AM EST]
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,749
Points:4,581,605
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Oct 20, 2014 6:46:48 AM

Weaslespit, "No, because that would also be wealth 're'-distribution, which this topic is not about."

There is no mention if income inequality in the title of this topic. In fact, the first sentence of the primary post talks about wealth being spread out, NOT income inequality.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,749
Points:4,581,605
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Oct 20, 2014 6:44:08 AM

rjhenn, "nstrdnvstr - "So you don't want to take money from the "0.1%" and give it to others?"

No, I want the 0.1% to stop taking money away from those who earned it, just because they can."

Again, how are they "taking" it? Are they going into their bank accounts in the middle of the night?
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,401
Points:543,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 20, 2014 12:43:34 AM

"How exactly is it "taken" from them? Do the banks secretly take it out of their accounts at night?"

No, because that would also be wealth 're'-distribution, which this topic is not about.

Again, I encourage you to Google 'Income Inequality'. Lots to read about there so you can grasp what is being presented to you.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,310
Points:2,797,470
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 19, 2014 10:22:19 PM

nstrdnvstr - "So you don't want to take money from the "0.1%" and give it to others?"

No, I want the 0.1% to stop taking money away from those who earned it, just because they can.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,749
Points:4,581,605
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Oct 19, 2014 1:43:57 PM

SemiSteve, "The point being that wealth inequity has become extreme and it is hurting the economy. For a few to become fabulously rich many must be made poor.

Dancing all around this fact does not change it."

That is clearly a myth.

The economy is not grows and shrinks, there is no set "pie size" for the economy.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,749
Points:4,581,605
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Oct 19, 2014 1:41:32 PM

Weaslespit, "I think most would simply like to see the current trend halted where money is continuously taken from the 99.9%..."

How exactly is it "taken" from them? Do the banks secretly take it out of their accounts at night?
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,401
Points:543,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 19, 2014 11:53:38 AM

"So you don't want to take money from the "0.1%" and give it to others?"

I think most would simply like to see the current trend halted where money is continuously taken from the 99.9% and given to the 0.1% as the gap in income inequality continues to widen. This is a decades-old problem that transcends short-term political ideologies.

All I am looking for a is a trend back to 'normal' levels of income inequality, over the coming decades, as seen 50+ years ago - which benefits the '100%'.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,401
Points:543,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 19, 2014 11:41:30 AM

"You want to decide how much is too much to earn and how much is too little."

No, the economy decides that. In recent decades, as the income inequality gap continues to widen, the economy becomes more fragile and susceptible to booms and busts as it is not robust as more and more wealth concentrates at the top...

Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,285
Points:437,885
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 19, 2014 8:26:18 AM

Cons here continue to lean toward trying to make the arguments personal (unfounded accusations of envy; and vague terms such as 'people who make more than you') and libs stick to the concepts.

This indicates the libs have a better grasp of the subject and the cons keep trying to deflect from it because they can't deal with the implications that the libs have a valid point.

The point being that wealth inequity has become extreme and it is hurting the economy. For a few to become fabulously rich many must be made poor.

Dancing all around this fact does not change it.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,749
Points:4,581,605
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Oct 18, 2014 11:23:22 PM

rjhenn, "nstrdnvstr - "No rjhenn, I completely understand. You want to take money from those that earn more than you and give it to others that earn less."

Showing, again, that you don't understand."

So you don't want to take money from the "0.1%" and give it to others?
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,310
Points:2,797,470
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 18, 2014 8:06:37 PM

streetrider - "because of all the rhetoric about freebie stuff."

Is that doing something for the bottom 1% or trying to buy votes by making it appear that they're doing something for the bottom 1%?

"The better question is what makes anyone think that either party serves anything more than self interest?"

Agreed, and what I was trying to get at.
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,354
Points:150,235
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Oct 18, 2014 7:58:07 PM

rjhenn
said
"What makes you think that either party is really doing anything for the bottom 1%?"
because of all the rhetoric about freebie stuff.

The better question is what makes anyone think that either party serves anything more than self interest?
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,310
Points:2,797,470
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 18, 2014 7:51:32 PM

theTower - "So disturbingly sad. And such an irrational reply to make."

It's rational to want a weak economy and to hate the working man?

Because that's your position.

"You're nothing but an uninformed wealth envious liberal."

Speaking of uninformed, try these.

And, of course, there's Wikipedia.
Profile Pic
theTower
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:15,405
Points:557,765
Joined:Jun 2007
Message Posted: Oct 18, 2014 6:52:58 PM

"I see you can't stop looking in that mirror."

So disturbingly sad. And such an irrational reply to make.

You're nothing but an uninformed wealth envious liberal. Who probably votes too.
You still can't place any numbers on your contentions about "skimming", "grabbing", or define who "we" is, what kinds of numbers explain "Paid more". Just who are "others take it" and how much are they taking?

[Edited by: theTower at 10/18/2014 6:54:37 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,310
Points:2,797,470
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 18, 2014 6:48:01 PM

streetrider - "They both help the 1%, one the top 1%, the other the bottom 1%.My guess is the people are getting smarter at realizing this."

What makes you think that either party is really doing anything for the bottom 1%?
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,310
Points:2,797,470
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 18, 2014 6:47:44 PM

nstrdnvstr - "No rjhenn, I completely understand. You want to take money from those that earn more than you and give it to others that earn less."

Showing, again, that you don't understand.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,310
Points:2,797,470
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 18, 2014 6:47:13 PM

theTower - "More lies."

How so? You just proved the truth of it again.

"You've been asked many things about this topic, several times, by many people.
You don't answer."

Yes, I do. But you can't stand the answers.

"All you do is keep obfuscating the issues, or insulting others.
You also haven't denied a single thing you have been accused of.
I'm sure for you it sucks to have a light shined on you."

I see you can't stop looking in that mirror.

"You also, and this is just hysterical, basically keep using the "I know you are but what am I" when replying.
You got NOTHING is all that means."

Again, isn't that all you're doing? And all you've got?

"And if what you are saying is true and its not just your jealous envious of others bank accounts ideology shining through for all to see, then who gets to decide the solutions you seek to rectify the problems you claim to exist?"

Finally, a semi-intelligent question. And one that's been answered before.

And the answer is: that's really the crux of the problem. There isn't any good answer. Do we let those who only think of their short-term profit continue to screw things up for all of us, including themselves in the long run, or do we let politicians screw things up for all of us? There has to be another answer, but I sure don't know what it is.

About all I can do is keep trying to educate and point out good examples of what works.
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,354
Points:150,235
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Oct 18, 2014 3:10:23 PM

Once we had the whig and the Democratic/Republican party.
The whigs ceased to exist, the other party like spoiled siblings decided to go separate ways and have been on opposing sides since.


They both help the 1%, one the top 1%, the other the bottom 1%.My guess is the people are getting smarter at realizing this.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,749
Points:4,581,605
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Oct 18, 2014 7:01:02 AM

No rjhenn, I completely understand. You want to take money from those that earn more than you and give it to others that earn less. It gives you a warm fuzzy feeling inside. You want to decide how much is too much to earn and how much is too little. You don't want the people to invest their capital in high risk ventures to earn a decent profit for their risk. You want the people that work at those jobs to be paid more that the market says it is worth.

So basically, you want a lot more government control of the economy from beginning to end.
Profile Pic
theTower
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:15,405
Points:557,765
Joined:Jun 2007
Message Posted: Oct 18, 2014 4:53:42 AM


I forgot,
rjhenn
You still can't place any numbers on your contentions about "skimming", "grabbing", or define who "we" is, what kinds of numbers explain "Paid more". Just who are "others take it" and how much are they taking?
And if what you are saying is true and its not just your jealous envious of others bank accounts ideology shining through for all to see, then who gets to decide the solutions you seek to rectify the problems you claim to exist?

[Edited by: theTower at 10/18/2014 5:01:22 AM EST]
Profile Pic
theTower
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:15,405
Points:557,765
Joined:Jun 2007
Message Posted: Oct 18, 2014 4:44:46 AM

"Yet every post you make is antagonistic. No actual content, no contribution to the topic, just insults and antagonism"

More lies.
You've been asked many things about this topic, several times, by many people.
You don't answer.
All you do is keep obfuscating the issues, or insulting others.
You also haven't denied a single thing you have been accused of.
I'm sure for you it sucks to have a light shined on you.
You also, and this is just hysterical, basically keep using the "I know you are but what am I" when replying.
You got NOTHING is all that means.



[Edited by: theTower at 10/18/2014 4:49:06 AM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,310
Points:2,797,470
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 18, 2014 12:31:38 AM

jdhelm - "If anyone has a better explanation of the difference between Republican and Democrat I'm all ears."

One of my favorites:
“The Democrats seem to be basically nicer people, but they have demonstrated time and again that they have the management skills of celery. They're the kind of people who'd stop to help you change a flat, but would somehow manage to set your car on fire. I would be reluctant to entrust them with a Cuisinart, let alone the economy. The Republicans, on the other hand, would know how to fix your tire, but they wouldn't bother to stop because they'd want to be on time for Ugly Pants Night at the country club.”

Dave Barry

[Edited by: rjhenn at 10/18/2014 12:32:12 AM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,310
Points:2,797,470
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 18, 2014 12:30:26 AM

nstrdnvstr - "And you confirm my point, you are generous with other people's money."

And you still refuse, apparently deliberately, to "get it".

[Edited by: rjhenn at 10/18/2014 12:30:41 AM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,310
Points:2,797,470
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 18, 2014 12:30:10 AM

theTower - "No it isn't. Its your worthless opinion.
Yet there are pages and pages of proof of EVERYTHING of what I have said about you and the wease that just nails what I have said about the both of you being antagonists. Multiple topics too."

Yet every post you make is antagonistic. No actual content, no contribution to the topic, just insults and antagonism.

Look in the mirror.
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,354
Points:150,235
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Oct 17, 2014 4:03:10 PM

A study of history shows the bolshevik revolution strongly correlates with the labor movement in this country.
The socialist wanted more and the Robber Barron's gave less.
ROFLMAO
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,133
Points:1,520,020
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Oct 17, 2014 3:48:55 PM

Absolutely classic example of proggielib hypocrisy
.
.
>>>The economy is stagnant — so stagnant that over 35 percent of all Americans have been reported to a collection agency for bad debt and The Washington Post has advised newly-minted college graduates to give up hope and go live in their parents’ basements.

However, The Daily Caller never dreamed it would come to this: A socialist party that wants to raise the federal minimum wage to $20 per hour is currently advertising a job for an experienced web developer paying $13 per hour.

The party is the Freedom Socialist Party, which, impressively, owns the rights to the domain name Socialism.com.

This month, the Freedom Socialist Party placed an ad on both Indeed.com and Craigslist seeking a part-time web content manager in Seattle. The job pays $13 per hour (or more, maybe, if you are really good).

In 2012, the Freedom Socialist Party’s national platform championed “full employment” — not part-time — and an increase in the minimum wage “to $20 an hour” for all employees in all jobs.<<<

It just doesnt get any better than that is showing the abject blatant hypocrisy the Democrats er er proggielibs have.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,401
Points:543,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 17, 2014 3:31:44 PM

"It is not a "tangent" at all, in fact it is a main basis in becoming wealthy!"

Incorrect. You can make as many wise decisions as possible but if you don't have income you can never get wealth.

So the main basis for wealth is still income.
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,354
Points:150,235
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Oct 17, 2014 3:26:22 PM

makes one wonder, what if your career paths keep getting cut off.
Many paths to nowhere is not going to create wealth.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,749
Points:4,581,605
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Oct 17, 2014 3:08:29 PM

Weaslespit, ""Making all kinds of wise decisions guarantees better odds of wealth, those choices include choosing career paths and family paths."

Although true, it is a tangent unrelated to the fact that income does guarantee better odds of wealth..."

It is not a "tangent" at all, in fact it is a main basis in becoming wealthy!
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,401
Points:543,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 17, 2014 2:01:09 PM

I stopped reading here;

"was very much in favor of higher taxes to support...redistribution of wealth."

Another typical deflection from what is actually being discussed...
Profile Pic
jdhelm
Champion Author Iowa

Posts:16,014
Points:1,788,740
Joined:Dec 2009
Message Posted: Oct 17, 2014 1:56:52 PM

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words, redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, 'How is your friend Audrey doing?' She replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over.'

Her wise father asked his daughter, 'Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.'

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, 'That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!'

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, 'Welcome to the Republican party.'

If anyone has a better explanation of the difference between Republican and Democrat I'm all ears.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,401
Points:543,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 17, 2014 9:55:12 AM

"Making all kinds of wise decisions guarantees better odds of wealth, those choices include choosing career paths and family paths."

Although true, it is a tangent unrelated to the fact that income does guarantee better odds of wealth...
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,749
Points:4,581,605
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Oct 17, 2014 9:52:51 AM

Weaslespit, "Living beyond ones means is a choice, not a certainty... Again, income DOES guarantee better odds of wealth."

Living beyond ones means is a choice. Living below ones means is also a choice. Your life path also has many choices made by you. Making all kinds of wise decisions guarantees better odds of wealth, those choices include choosing career paths and family paths.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,749
Points:4,581,605
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Oct 17, 2014 9:50:10 AM

rjhenn, "nstrdnvstr - "All I am asking for you to do is to lead by example."

No, you're asking me to pretend that I'm one of the 0.1%. I'm not, so why pretend?"

So what is good for the goose is not good for the gander?

And you confirm my point, you are generous with other people's money.
Profile Pic
theTower
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:15,405
Points:557,765
Joined:Jun 2007
Message Posted: Oct 17, 2014 4:16:44 AM

"And more proof that I'm right about you."

No it isn't. Its your worthless opinion.
Yet there are pages and pages of proof of EVERYTHING of what I have said about you and the wease that just nails what I have said about the both of you being antagonists. Multiple topics too.
Still can't place any numbers on "skimming" or "grabbing" yet eh?
How predictable. Imply somethings happening, to you personally it would seem, and yet you can't even explain how much "they" are skimming or grabbing.
Yet every payday, I'm betting you have an amount in mind.
Don't you.
Spill it then.

"No, we want working people to be paid more of the wealth they create, instead of having others take it, just because they can."

"We" (who?) "Paid more" (how much?), "others take it" (who? and how much?)
And who gets to decide?
Just more ambiguity, as always, nothing more.

[Edited by: theTower at 10/17/2014 4:20:24 AM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,310
Points:2,797,470
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 17, 2014 12:45:25 AM

The Trader Joe's Lesson: How to Pay a Living Wage and Still Make Money in Retail
Post a reply Back to Topics