Wealth Distribution in the USA

Wibbs · 25-10-2013 11:05AM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Fine but you would have to be either mad, or an autistic slave to stats to say an American unskilled worker/unemployed is better off in life than an Italian or Israeli professional. As I said, if the question was posed, few would chose the former. Lies damned lies and all that.

25-10-2013 11:08AM

I don't really understand a lot of this, however how come when you go to any large city in the US there are so many street people fare more than you see in European cities ( and no I haven't been to every large city in the US or Europe but enough of them to notice this ).

How come there is such a hatred of the poor or those who need welfare in the US, I mean really vial stuff you would not see even the most rabid right winger coming out with here.

Another this that I think is amazing is a program I saw about people living in tents in the us, a lot of them had the flag proudly flying form their tents despite being let down by the society they live in and being utterly despised for their poverty by their fellow country men.

Blowfish · 25-10-2013 11:16AM

Christy42 wrote: »

because the well to do know that their families will be able to live on comfortably on a smaller percentage of their wealth. I mean really, would you donate money to charity if you knew your family would be on the bread line after you were gone?

Conversely, why would you put your family on the breadline after you were gone if you knew you could leave them with a comfortable life?

Christy42 wrote: »

I am not saying that rich people are evil, giving some of their money to charity is a good thing but their kids will still have major advantages in life and should be taxed accordingly.

All I'm pointing out is that the existing taxes is nowhere near the entire monetary 'contribution to society' that the wealthiest give. They also give up ~75% of their capital on death. That's a lot more than you or I are ever going to contribute to society. Begrudging or demonising them for their contribution just seems a little silly.

Permabear · 25-10-2013 11:19AM

This post has been deleted.

Seaneh · 25-10-2013 11:25AM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That is one of the stupidest things I have ever read on boards.
And I've been here for over 12 years.

Having spent time in both Israel and the US, I know I'd much rather be of average income living in Haifa than of low income living anywhere in the US.

drumswan · 25-10-2013 11:38AM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

In other words those statistics dont suit us so we'll make up our own.

KyussBishop · 25-10-2013 11:39AM

These case studies between different countries, always seem to focus on individual points while missing the bigger picture, and considering this thread is about wealth distribution, here's a better way to compare that between countries: Peoples net worth (factoring in both assets and debt/liabilities - the latter of which often gets ignored).

Here's a good image, of median net worth across many countries (including almost all of the ones mentioned in the thread), to give some perspective:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/07/medianwealth.jpg

Found it here after a brief search:
http://www.middleclasspoliticaleconomist.com/2012/07/us-trails-at-least-15-oecd-countries-in.html

So that paints a very interesting picture, which I think goes contrary to a lot of standard narrative (from all political/economic views), on some of the countries listed.

KyussBishop · 25-10-2013 11:49AM

I see we're back to the silly narrative of accusing others of jealousy/begrudgery of peoples riches: No, I want people to get ridiculously wealthy for putting together and running successful business, that is a benefit to society - what I don't want, is for the income inequality to be allowed grow so great, that it actively harms society.

As I repeat a lot, Money = Power, and the greater the amount of unchecked compensation people are allowed to extract from business and the economy, beyond the benefit they provide (and often at the expense of the workers who play an inseparable part in providing it), then the more potential power they have over everyone else in society (including the ability to attain disproportionately favourable treatment in the legal/political system, in some cases even being able to get put beyond the law, among much more forms of power that money enables).

The problems of growing income inequality are real, and do actually harm society - this set of problems is never addressed though in discussions like this, often just played down or denied - it's not a very credible issue to deny though, so that just exposes a lack of any answer for it.

thebaz · 25-10-2013 11:55AM

Wompa1 wrote: »

I was afraid of hospitals in Ireland!

I think the comparison to other countries where there's a monarchy or women's rights are trampled on is a cop out. I've had others here do that too. Why compare with an extreme like that. Plus isn't this the greatest country in the world??

Hospitals here will not hunt you down for money like in America, ask anyone who has experience of both ;
I don't know what you are on about regarding monarchy comparisons, I just made some obsevations about the U.S. medical system - your way overcomplicating what I said.

Christy42 · 25-10-2013 12:17PM

Blowfish wrote: »

Conversely, why would you put your family on the breadline after you were gone if you knew you could leave them with a comfortable life?
All I'm pointing out is that the existing taxes is nowhere near the entire monetary 'contribution to society' that the wealthiest give. They also give up ~75% of their capital on death. That's a lot more than you or I are ever going to contribute to society. Begrudging or demonising them for their contribution just seems a little silly.

They don't deserve the money they are earning. There is no good reason for CEO's to be on so much. How much do you think the big families in the states risk by setting up a company? Basically none. If it goes belly up they still have a massive amount of money (the same can't be said for any employees who are probably now in a lot of trouble). The system is set up to give them favours when making money, give the same favours to others and they will do the same thing. There is no incredible business magic going on behind closed doors most of the time. CEO's are not worth that much more than everyone else. Should they be rewarded for what they are doing? Yes but I feel they are getting too much at the moment.

Permabear · 25-10-2013 12:32PM

This post has been deleted.

Sleevoo · 25-10-2013 12:42PM

Christy42 wrote: »

They don't deserve the money they are earning. There is no good reason for CEO's to be on so much. How much do you think the big families in the states risk by setting up a company? Basically none. If it goes belly up they still have a massive amount of money (the same can't be said for any employees who are probably now in a lot of trouble). The system is set up to give them favours when making money, give the same favours to others and they will do the same thing. There is no incredible business magic going on behind closed doors most of the time. CEO's are not worth that much more than everyone else. Should they be rewarded for what they are doing? Yes but I feel they are getting too much at the moment.

Lets assume for the sake of argument that ceos are overpaid, how is that your problem? Thats the shareholders problem, not yours.

drumswan · 25-10-2013 12:46PM

Sleevoo wrote: »

Lets assume for the sake of argument that ceos are overpaid, how is that your problem? Thats the shareholders problem, not yours.

You keep asking that question. Its a societal problem, as wealth is finite. Too much concentration of wealth in too few hands is detrimental to society. The ideal lies somewhere in the middle, to allow people to grow hugely wealthy, but not to the extent that the large amounts of people live in poverty as a result.

Sleevoo · 25-10-2013 12:55PM

drumswan wrote: »

You keep asking that question. Its a societal problem, as wealth is finite. Too much concentration of wealth in too few hands is detrimental to society. The ideal lies somewhere in the middle, to allow people to grow hugely wealthy, but not to the extent that the large amounts of people live in poverty as a result.

Wealth is created by generating value. Why shouldn't we let those who earn their wealth fairly spend it how they wish.

I contend that any damage done by very wealthy individuals ( whatever that is) would be far outweighed by the damage done by a society whereby there is no possibility or oppurtunity for most people to become very wealthy.

how do people live in poverty as a result of others being very wealthy?

Most are in poverty because they don't generate value.

Radiosonde · 25-10-2013 12:55PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm sure many would share your views on living in Israel, but being a top-earner in Italy or Portugal vs. life on the lower rungs in California? That's a no-brainer.

Rented Mule · 25-10-2013 12:56PM

K-9 wrote: »

Kind of makes me wonder about trickle down economics.

I believe that George H Bush called this 'VooDoo Economics' when he was running against Ronald Reagan.

He called it a 'sound economic plan' when he became his VP.

Christy42 · 25-10-2013 01:17PM

Sleevoo wrote: »

Wealth is created by generating value. Why shouldn't we let those who earn their wealth fairly spend it how they wish.

I contend that any damage done by very wealthy individuals ( whatever that is) would be far outweighed by the damage done by a society whereby there is no possibility or oppurtunity for most people to become very wealthy.

how do people live in poverty as a result of others being very wealthy?

Most are in poverty because they don't generate value.

No one stated you can't become wealthy. Some will still earn more than others. The gap will not be as large. CEO's being paid so much means less money is being given to those lower down the chain or into the company (which helps the economy as the company would spend the money, again giving it to others), CEO's paying less tax means there is less money to give people from disadvantaged backrounds healthcare and a decent education, which help get them out of poverty.

If your final point were true then people from wealthy backrounds would be as likely to be in poverty as people from poor backrounds.

drumswan · 25-10-2013 01:53PM

Sleevoo wrote: »

Wealth is created by generating value. Why shouldn't we let those who earn their wealth fairly spend it how they wish.

Did you even read my post? Where did I say otherwise?

I contend that any damage done by very wealthy individuals ( whatever that is) would be far outweighed by the damage done by a society whereby there is no possibility or oppurtunity for most people to become very wealthy.

Im in agreement with allowing people to becoming very wealthy.

how do people live in poverty as a result of others being very wealthy?

Because wealth is finite and can sometimes be pooled in too few hands. I typed this out already.

Most are in poverty because they don't generate value.

What do you mean by 'value' here?

donegal__road · 25-10-2013 02:02PM

mariaalice wrote: »

I don't really understand a lot of this, however how come when you go to any large city in the US there are so many street people fare more than you see in European cities ( and no I haven't been to every large city in the US or Europe but enough of them to notice this ).

How come there is such a hatred of the poor or those who need welfare in the US, I mean really vial stuff you would not see even the most rabid right winger coming out with here.

Another this that I think is amazing is a program I saw about people living in tents in the us, a lot of them had the flag proudly flying form their tents despite being let down by the society they live in and being utterly despised for their poverty by their fellow country men.

there are several documentaries on youtube about the tent cities that have sprung up across the US in the last number of years. I watched an interview with a lady who lived in a tent just off a busy highway, she was almost 60, used to be a high-end textile designer on a 6 figure salary.. there were many similar stories from right across the board.

Sleevoo · 25-10-2013 02:04PM

drumswan wrote: »

Did you even read my post? Where did I say otherwise?

Im in agreement with allowing people to becoming very wealthy.

Because wealth is finite and can sometimes be pooled in too few hands. I typed this out already.

What do you mean by 'value' here?

Wealth isn't finite, there is far more wealth per person now than 100 years ago. The person who invented the wheel for example created huge wealth that didn't exist beforehand. Life b3came easier, people were better off.

Offer something that people want, be it your skills or a product etc.

I am pie · 25-10-2013 02:14PM

These discussions become very esoteric as soon as people start talkin about equitably sharing wealth. All of a sudden we have CEOs who "create value" , value is not created by CEOs. Value is in a manufacturing context the manipulation of raw resources into a product, steel and plastic turned into a Mercedes or an iPad etc. This value is augmented at every step by everyone involved in the process, however the value is principally created by it's designers, the owners of the intellectual propert, the idea creators. CEOs are PR agents, gamblers and political influencers. They would be stranded without a game to play in if it wasn't for the efforts of the workforce to create products.

In the Financial Services industry the same more or less applies, the products are designed and packaged by maths geeks, bought and sold by traders etc. No game for the CEOs to exist in without the organisation that sits beneath them.

As expert influencers and political animals they have been able to rig the game to their own benefit and build strong links to politicians in the US and become part of a non-political dynasty in the US. If you explore the links of former CEOs in the financial sector to lobbying companies and political appointments and the subsequent effects on policy, you can see what they are really getting paid for, creating a bigger playing field, removing regulation to facilitate growth. Big business is intrinsically linked to govt in the US (and I suspect in many other big economies) as an influencer and decision maker. This is true of either party in the US certainly at least in the Financial services sphere.

Long story short, as long as business has such a strong grip on govt CEOs will be rewarded for influencing policy too facilitate growth. The wage slaves beneath will be afforded a smaller part of that pie and the financial markets which exist to exert dollar dominance on a global scale are where this really all plays out. Those who dominate the markets and play them to their advantage own the wealth.

Permabear · 25-10-2013 02:49PM

This post has been deleted.

I am pie · 25-10-2013 03:35PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Asked a yourself question and answered it yourself? Funny type of discussion....I think I have attended a few of your meetings previously.

I don't disagree that CEOs are necessary, however it should be blindingly obvious to anyone that political influence and not skill as a marketeer is what is being rewarded here. It is vary naive or self interested to create an argument to the contrary in my opinion.

Also, in my experience, of which I have plenty in the Fin Serv's industry, CEOs do not make the type of decisions you are claiming on their behalf. Marketing departments, accountants and 3rd party consultancies will provide a significant input. New tech companiers are outliers ](Zuckerberg, Jobs etc) but they soon fall in line with more accepted norms. The original leading lights take a back seat and let corporate influencers embed the company into the accepted political establishment rather than make the type of decisions you suggest they do.

This is all fluff however when considering the real question, is it worth allowing wealth concentration to continue without mitigating against the destabilising effect on society in times of economic difficulty? Is it competitive for US industry or does it limit alternatives, to me a lot of consolidation is taking place, especially in FS and I can't see this as a positive for innovation.

For me business, via lobby groups, (the tech sector doesnt yet have a big voice here, but oil and finance write govt policy) must be abstracted for govt and we should stop rewarding CEOs for political influence.

pickarooney · 25-10-2013 03:38PM

biko wrote: »

Senior Apple executives Jeffrey Williams and Peter Oppenheimer both earned about €52m each.
That's why your iphone is so expensive...

To put it into perspective, that's about the same as Zlatan Ibrahimovic, but he pays over 40 million in tax on it.

opr · 25-10-2013 03:50PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

In many cases though that all just comes down to sheer luck. Yes, it's about being in the right place at the right time with a product but often that isn't enough. Many others with the same products ideas as google, facebook even tablets tried and failed with very similar ideas prior to those that took off hugely but for one reason or another they didn't resonate in the same way that the others did.

To say that mircosoft didn't look ahead is rubbish. Prior to 1999 they had already tried and failed with the idea of tablets. In 1999 they once again tried. Many of the problems actually related to the fact that they were probably too visionary at the time in that the technology wasn't scalable enough to make it properly mobile.

The real breakthrough came in the fact that lite operating system made them much more mobile. That's a breakthrough by a tech head and not some idiot lucky enough to be hailed as some visionary on his back. Funny enough the idea of having a full operating system as use on a tablet would be the evolutionary step forward now, something microsoft tried and failed with in the first place.

Opr

Amirani · 25-10-2013 03:51PM

Sleevoo wrote: »

Wealth isn't finite, there is far more wealth per person now than 100 years ago. The person who invented the wheel for example created huge wealth that didn't exist beforehand. Life b3came easier, people were better off.

Offer something that people want, be it your skills or a product etc.

You're trying to argue that wealth isn't finite? What is your understanding of wealth?

drumswan · 25-10-2013 03:52PM

The CEO must have moved into the marketing department for a week, used his magical value creating powers and Apple never looked back

Permabear · 25-10-2013 04:05PM

This post has been deleted.

Sleevoo · 25-10-2013 04:09PM

NiallSparky wrote: »

You're trying to argue that wealth isn't finite? What is your understanding of wealth?

The aggregrate wealth in the world is dynamic.

bomb every road in the world and wealth plummets, if we find a far more efficient and cheaper form of energy then wealth skyrockets.

Permabear · 25-10-2013 04:10PM

This post has been deleted.

Wealth Distribution in the USA

Comments