nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Wealth Distribution in the USA

donegal__road

I saw this video clip a couple of days ago, and it is pretty shocking. I know it is 6 minutes long, so to cut to the chase...
1% of the population of the USA own 40% of the wealth (54 trillion dollars in 2009 being the total wealth). On the chart shown in the video, the middle class are barely distinguishable from the poor.

Many of the 1% wealthiest in the USA pay as little as 15% tax, while the lowest income workers pay one third of what they earn in taxes.

For those who don't have the time to watch this video, there is a screen-shot I have taken from the clip below the youtube video, which shows how badly skewed the distribution of wealth is in the US.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Sleevoo

KyussBishop wrote: »

Good post I wouldn't begrudge him that success either, as (even if he got a significant helping hand) he's still got that company put together and running successfully now, so certainly deserves good reward for that.

While wealth begets more wealth, and it gets passed along in families and gives advantages like that, I don't think that is something that specifically needs to be clamped down on - but what is important I think, is being able to factor this in, and set some limits (to salaries say) to prevent income inequality being too great and getting perpetuated - because we know that harms opportunities for the less well off even more (and limiting it, would just be preventing an even greater imbalance in the playing field).

You actually think the government should be able to tell an employer how much they can pay their emoloyees?

clairefontaine

bluewolf wrote: »

Because it's omg not fair and I demand some too just because

Let me finish the sentence

...... I'm JEALOUS!!!!

Pepe LeFrits

Sleevoo wrote: »

You actually think the government should be able to tell an employer how much they can pay their emoloyees?

Course not. They just tell them how much they're taxing them.

KyussBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

All this talk but no one can answer the question if a CEO can make many times the average worker's wage then why shouldn't they? More power to them.

That was answered though, and nobody seems to have tried to counter my 'bigger-picture' answers on that; here was one of the uncontested ones:

Income inequality like that, when it is excessive enough, gives the person gaining that wealth excessive power over the rest of society (including the potential to gain favourable treatment within the political/legal system - among many other ways of exerting power through money), and the effects of excessive income inequality are known to harm the less well off in society, leading to a more (in general) perpetuatingly unequal society, were the less well off have more difficulty achieving social mobility (i.e. more difficulty transitioning from poor to middle class to rich).

K-9

Sleevoo wrote: »

You actually think the government should be able to tell an employer how much they can pay their emoloyees?

Ours already do through minimum wage, we used to have Joint Labour Committees but they are unconstitutional now.

clairefontaine wrote: »

Let me finish the sentence

...... I'm JEALOUS!!!!

We can all stereotype if you want!

Wibbs

Sleevoo wrote: »

Children of rich parents may have an advantage, but they are often disadvantaged by never having a work ethic instilled in them. Succesful people often have an emotional framework in place whereby they feel good putting in the hard work. This never develops when you are given everything without having to work for it.

This is a bit of a fallacy, though a popular one to be fair. I've known many the child of rich parents and many had "everything handed on a plate to them", even a couple of trust fund kiddies who didn't have to work and few of them were layabouts. Very few. Even those that were ended up in more advantageous positions in later life because of their parents economic and social stock.

But back to advantages, we live in the best time of the history of the planet to be alive. Imagine telling egyptian slaves a few thousand years ago about the plight you must endure in this modern world.

Ahh the first world problem debate. 1) slavery in ancient Egypt wasn't the slavery you imagine and slaves didn't build the pyramids, they were paid workers with bonuses and free medical care. Fancy that. 2) Most physicians in Rome* were Greek slaves and I'd bet the farm they wouldn't swap their lot with those people pushing their entire life in a shopping trolley wending the streets of LA at this very moment. Yes life is great at the mo in the west anyway, but "Best time in history" is not so cut and dried as it is often portrayed.

EDIT I was about to * about Rome being a remarkably socially mobile society, but I had brain failure.

Sorry. Still prolly** for the best.

** I'm down with the kidz. Until the Guards show up anyway.

Wibbs

diomed wrote: »

1% own 40%, 99% own 59% 60%.

Do you expect 1% to own 1%, and 99% own 99%?

Actually D I'm a Nazi so I want about 60% and the rest of ye can fight it out among yourselves. I'll make sure ye've got very cool uniforms though. So long as I get a salute, I'm happy out.

clairefontaine

Wibbs wrote: »

This is a bit of a fallacy, though a popular one to be fair. I've known many the child of rich parents and many had "everything handed on a plate to them", even a couple of trust fund kiddies who didn't have to work and few of them were layabouts. Very few. Even those that were ended up in more advantageous positions in later life because of their parents economic and social stock.

Ahh the first world problem debate. 1) slavery in ancient Egypt wasn't the slavery you imagine and slaves didn't build the pyramids, they were paid workers with bonuses and free medical care. Fancy that. 2) Most physicians in Rome* were Greek slaves and I'd bet the farm they wouldn't swap their lot with those people pushing their entire life in a shopping trolley wending the streets of LA at this very moment. Yes life is great at the mo in the west anyway, but "Best time in history" is not so cut and dried as it is often portrayed.

Actually the people pushing those trolleys are entitled to free healthcare, as are the poor. The problem was the threshold for what constitutes poverty and the exhorbitant costs of healthcare in the first place [why a visit to the dentist for example, in the US is $530 and in Ireland E70 - same big disparity for most services I imagine. ]

This however has less to do with redistribition of citizens wealth imo and the protectionism of the medical cartel by lobbyists and pharma.

opr

UCDVet wrote: »

100% correct.

In addition to school specific programs, the US Federal Government backs all of the student loans. People in the US don't pay to go to college, and they don't need jobs or credit history. They fill out paperwork and wait for their check. Each year they can get more and more money.

The idea that poor people can't afford to go to college in the US is crazy.

There are lots of US students at UCD who borrow 80k USD per year, for their educational costs. And they are posting pictures of their fancy holidays and yacht cruises. All financed with their student loans.

The bigger question relating to the 1% versus the 99& is why? Indebted life servitude through debt is one that springs to mind.

I'm sorry to quote another article by Chomsky but he talks about this specific thing quite recently and the whole article ties in rather well with the discussion in the thread.

Noam Chomsky on Student Debt and Education interviewed by Edward Radzivilovskiy, Deputy Opinion Editor, Washington Square News.

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20130227.htm

Edit - Also found a video of the interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQceytpvKAc

Opr

KyussBishop

Wibbs wrote: »

Id agree with the rest of your post KB however not so much with this bit:

Libertarianism is not as monolithic as some seem to think. Libertarians also may pick and choose along a spectrum, just like any other "ism". You most certainly have "hardline" Libertarians and ones who are more a la carte. You even have a Libertarian left which the Libertarians on the right would have issues with. Of course you find a spectrum, that's people for ya. And Libertarians are people? Right? Some of my best friends...

True, certainly

though the reliables shared between all Libertarians (and when I say that, I mean Right-Libertarians; I'd count myself as Left-Libertarian, but today 'Libertarian' is more associated with the right, due to the US), would be an anti-government, free-market view, where the markets are viewed as being capable of self-regulating in managing society, such that public services like welfare and other government involvement, are not needed to prevent large subsections of society from becoming poor and/or suffering harm - among much much more.

Those are very general sweeps I apply to (Right-)Libertarians, but I don't think they would be untrue? (I've not, from what I can remember, seen any self-identified Libertarian poster, not hold views pretty much identical to this - mostly around free-market stuff)

I don't use the label to dehumanize the posters or anything

I find the methods of argument I encounter a bit maddening a lot of the time, but if anything, it just makes me very curious how the views are held onto, and why certain methods of argument/thinking get used to back them.

clairefontaine

KyussBishop wrote: »

True, certainly though the reliables shared between all Libertarians (and when I say that, I mean Right-Libertarians; I'd count myself as Left-Libertarian, but today 'Libertarian' is more associated with the right, due to the US), would be an anti-government, free-market view, where the markets are viewed as being capable of self-regulating in managing society, such that public services like welfare and other government involvement, are not needed to prevent large subsections of society from becoming poor and/or suffering harm - among much much more.

Those are very general sweeps I apply to (Right-)Libertarians, but I don't think they would be untrue? (I've not, from what I can remember, seen any self-identified Libertarian poster, not hold views pretty much identical to this - mostly around free-market stuff)

I don't use the label to dehumanize the posters or anything I find the methods of argument I encounter a bit maddening a lot of the time, but if anything, it just makes me very curious how the views are held onto, and why certain methods of argument/thinking get used to back them.

I think you are mostly right, but the idea is not so much that government is not needed, more that government is not trusted, because historically it has cocked up so many things, and has its pockets lined by so many special interests, and wasted so much money, that it cannot be trusted.

Fox_In_Socks

clairefontaine wrote: »

I think you are mostly right, but the idea is not so much that government is not needed, more that government is not trusted, because historically it has cocked up so many things, and has its pockets lined by so many special interests, and wasted so much money, that it cannot be trusted.

Just exactly the same as (historically) business in general, religions, societies, empires and most especially, the common factor in everything on this thread....

.....people.:pac::pac:

KyussBishop

clairefontaine wrote: »

Of course there are barriers, of course there are inequalities. That's life and no point pretending otherwise.

But telling people over and over and over again about closed doors and lack of access yadda yadda yadda, that they cant achieve something or get access to something,is only going to convince them that they cant.

Sure you may have to work a little harder, study a little harder, make compromises others don't have to, so do it! What other choice is there? Wait for someone to do it for you? Sit around and feel sorry for yourself while those professors up in the NE making pretty good salaries propegate more of this rhetoric of paralysis?

Door is closed, find the window.

There are no guarantees, just opportunities.

I don't think the realities of the inequality, should be hidden from people in case it might prevent them from trying (it seems to assume people would have a rather fragile self-esteem about that) - if anything, I think it would make them want to do more about fixing the inequalities.

The point I make though, is that if you acknowledge this inequality, then it is also acknowledging that leadership within business often has as much to do with privilege than about real skill or merit - and this greatly undermines the arguments, about CEO's and such, deserving such enormous compensation.

It also bolsters arguments in favour of putting some kind of cap on the compensation, because this will lessen the growth of income inequality, and will assist in levelling the playing field (as well as counteracting all the other wider societal damage income inequality causes - nobody seems to have a strong counterargument to this).

KyussBishop

Sleevoo wrote: »

Or maybe thats something you are imagining.

Perhaps. I hope so.

Sleevoo wrote: »

You actually think the government should be able to tell an employer how much they can pay their emoloyees?

They already do - the minimum wage.

KyussBishop

clairefontaine wrote: »

Let me finish the sentence

...... I'm JEALOUS!!!!

In fairness though, I don't think any poster here has said people should not be richly rewarded for their success - I would say most people favour that really (I do anyway), so it seems almost close to an ad-hominem, to imply people are just jealous.

I'd like to see people mint it for getting a good company put together and providing a benefit to society, just not extracting such a ridiculous amount from the company (and as a class of people - from the economy/society), that the inequality in income, can give them disproportionate power over society, and contribute to all the other societal harm income inequality does.

There's plenty of room for people to become filthy rich, without them becoming so ridiculously rich, that it harms society.

clairefontaine

KyussBishop wrote: »

In fairness though, I don't think any poster here has said people should not be richly rewarded for their success - I would say most people favour that really (I do anyway), so it seems almost close to an ad-hominem, to imply people are just jealous.

I'd like to see people mint it for getting a good company put together and providing a benefit to society, just not extracting such a ridiculous amount from the company (and as a class of people - from the economy/society), that the inequality in income, can give them disproportionate power over society, and contribute to all the other societal harm income inequality does.

There's plenty of room for people to become filthy rich, without them becoming so ridiculously rich, that it harms society.

What do you consider ridiculously rich?

Do you feel Apples low tax rate in Ireland harms society? If so, how? If not, why not?

Iwasfrozen

Wibbs wrote: »

TL;DR? I don't blame "capitalism" or the "market" for overinflated ceo and other exec wages(costs really), I blame human nature, a historic system, bragging rights between companies(we pay our execs more), uninformed shareholders and those who don't want to rock the boat. Among them the CEO class of course. Turkey's aint gonna vote for xmas.

I don't see how your Apple anecdote was related to my post so I'll skip it.

As for the rest of your post I don't blame anyone for over inflated wages. I don't blame any one because there isn't a problem. If I could make that much money I would and using state power curtail someone's earning potential is grossly unfair.

Sleevoo

KyussBishop wrote: »

Perhaps. I hope so.

They already do - the minimum wage.

Yes and they should remove the minimum wage.

KyussBishop

clairefontaine wrote: »

I think you are mostly right, but the idea is not so much that government is not needed, more that government is not trusted, because historically it has cocked up so many things, and has its pockets lined by so many special interests, and wasted so much money, that it cannot be trusted.

Absolutely, I'd agree with that view myself 100% - the problem is though (and this is something else I think would justifiably fit the label 'Libertarian'), this same level of skepticism just doesn't get applied to 'the markets' (specifically, the idea that markets can self-regulate) and private business (especially banking/finance).

I've never had a good discussion about fraud (the 'f' word

) with posters who hold these views - discussing it (very quickly) makes it rather difficult to defend self-regulation.

KyussBishop

Fox_In_Socks wrote: »

Just exactly the same as (historically) business in general, religions, societies, empires and most especially, the common factor in everything on this thread....

.....people.:pac::pac:

Ya actually, that's a far more useful distinction than talking about corruption in government, or private business, or unions/among-labour etc:
People are corrupt, and you can't fully trust anybody - you need to apply skepticism to everyone and every sector, you need the right checks and balances, and need to factor in potential corruption, everywhere, not just in business, or just in government, or wherever.

Iwasfrozen

KyussBishop wrote: »

That was answered though, and nobody seems to have tried to counter my 'bigger-picture' answers on that; here was one of the uncontested ones:

Income inequality like that, when it is excessive enough, gives the person gaining that wealth excessive power over the rest of society (including the potential to gain favourable treatment within the political/legal system - among many other ways of exerting power through money), and the effects of excessive income inequality are known to harm the less well off in society, leading to a more (in general) perpetuatingly unequal society, were the less well off have more difficulty achieving social mobility (i.e. more difficulty transitioning from poor to middle class to rich).

This is simply not true and other posters have already answered this. The quality of life of the poor while perhaps owning a smaller percentage of the nations wealth is constantly increasing.

It's like I give you a euro and your brother 100 euros and you throw your free euro back at me just because your brother has more.

Wibbs

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't see how your Apple anecdote was related to my post so I'll skip it.

and there's the rub.

As for the rest of your post I don't blame anyone for over inflated wages. I don't blame any one because there isn't a problem. If I could make that much money I would and using state power curtail someone's earning potential is grossly unfair.

And you don't see any "problem" therein? I suspect even my Libertarian mates working off a pure meritocratical(should be a word) viewpoint are reading this and going "ehhhh wut da f...?".

Iwasfrozen

Wibbs wrote: »

And you don't see any "problem" therein? I suspect even my Libertarian mates working off a pure meritocratical(should be a word) viewpoint are reading this and going "ehhhh wut da f...?".

Your libertarian mates would no doubt favour making the market more competitive to drive down executive salaries and bonuses. I'd tend to agree.

KyussBishop

clairefontaine wrote: »

What do you consider ridiculously rich?

Do you feel Apples low tax rate in Ireland harms society? If so, how? If not, why not?

I don't know really (on the first question); how much does someone have to be earning, to be able to gain a harmful amount of power over society? (such that they can corruptly influence the legal system and/or politics in their favour)

Billions? Hundreds/tens of millions? Just millions? The figure put on that is going to be arbitrary, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done - the harm from income inequality is well known/documented.

Arguments against this, usually ignore the harm from income inequality, just reduce to weak moral arguments about 'should's, which are easily overpowered by the argument that we 'should' (need - if we want a more equitable society) deal with counteracting income inequality.

On the second question, I would say my ideal economic system would have Apple paying no tax

but then that would be a cop-out, heh.

Ireland is certainly benefiting from other countries tax money being paid here, instead of in those other countries, yes - and I think that because Apple can legally sidestep their tax obligations, that means Americans need to pay more tax to compensate the shortfall in funds.

I don't think I'd call that harmful exactly, but I don't think it's very fair that the bigger the company, the more they can legally evade taxes like that. If your happy paying more tax, so that companies like Apple can evade taxes (and the wealthy too - who often get to legally evade a large portion of their taxes), then fair enough - it seems a bit self-defeating to justify it on their behalf though.

KyussBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

This is simply not true and other posters have already answered this. The quality of life of the poor while perhaps owning a smaller percentage of the nations wealth is constantly increasing.

It's like I give you a euro and your brother 100 euros and you throw your free euro back at me just because your brother has more.

That wasn't what I argued, I said this:

Income inequality like that, when it is excessive enough, gives the person gaining that wealth excessive power over the rest of society (including the potential to gain favourable treatment within the political/legal system - among many other ways of exerting power through money), and the effects of excessive income inequality are known to harm the less well off in society, leading to a more (in general) perpetuatingly unequal society, were the less well off have more difficulty achieving social mobility (i.e. more difficulty transitioning from poor to middle class to rich).

K-9

clairefontaine wrote: »

Do you feel Apples low tax rate in Ireland harms society? If so, how? If not, why not?

I'd say it's creative accounting, similar behaviour was often described as "cute hoorism" in Ireland.

clairefontaine

KyussBishop wrote: »

That wasn't what I argued, I said this:

Income inequality like that, when it is excessive enough, gives the person gaining that wealth excessive power over the rest of society (including the potential to gain favourable treatment within the political/legal system - among many other ways of exerting power through money), and the effects of excessive income inequality are known to harm the less well off in society, leading to a more (in general) perpetuatingly unequal society, were the less well off have more difficulty achieving social mobility (i.e. more difficulty transitioning from poor to middle class to rich).

Thats only true if the "rest of society" have been brainwashed to think they are impotent.

clairefontaine

K-9 wrote: »

I'd say it's creative accounting, similar behaviour was often described as "cute hoorism" in Ireland.

No it's legit. Ireland offers them a really low corporate tax rate and they avail of it.

If USA wanted to be truly competitive they'd drop their corporate tax rate and bring the jobs home. That's why we have so much outsourcing.

Fox_In_Socks

clairefontaine wrote: »

Thats only true if the "rest of society" have been brainwashed to think they are impotent.

I'm sure the many media outlets that are owned by one family are doing their very best with regard to this.:pac:

Iwasfrozen

KyussBishop wrote: »

, gives the person gaining that wealth excessive power over the rest of society

Power in what way?All people are equal before the law and every person only has one vote. Sure some wealthy businesses and groups lobby but two points on this. First these are businesses/groups that act in the interest of the business/group not individual people. Secondly no matter how well lined a parties pockets are it's people that will get them re-elected not money. Politicians are smart enough to know this so I question how much influence lobby groups really have.

KyussBishop wrote: »

,the effects of excessive income inequality are known to harm the less well off in society

Of course inequality is disadvantageous to the less well off. That's what inequality means!