Wealth Distribution in the USA

Permabear · 25-10-2013 04:18PM

This post has been deleted.

opr · 25-10-2013 04:23PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I said much of it comes down to luck. Of course other factors influence things to a degree. I'd be pretty confident though that in percentage terms the success/failure would be a tiny percentage when asked to represent the visionary input at the executive level.

Opr

Karl Stein · 25-10-2013 04:24PM

Apple and MS have had a lot of success at taking other people's ideas, stitching them together, seeking and being granted intellectual 'property' rights from the state, defending them aggressively, and then making a fortune off it by monopolizing the market or frightening others out of it with threats of litigation.

Many people have no idea (myself included until relatively recently) that they've paid MS for their OS each time they buy a device with it preloaded. Retailers should be forced to have a 'before MS price' and 'after MS price' on any device they buy so that consumers realise just how many times they've paid MS to use their OS (about 4 ****ing times myself and never again on a matter or principle).

Permabear · 25-10-2013 04:29PM

This post has been deleted.

Sleevoo · 25-10-2013 04:31PM

A good simple measure of the wealth in an economy is how much you can get in return for your effort.

Spend a week working as a waiter in Ireland and see what value you can buy with earnings and then do the same in America. The country in which you can get more value is wealthier all things equal. Im well aware this example is open to nit picking, just take message im giving.

Cool Mo D · 25-10-2013 04:32PM

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Many people have no idea (myself included until relatively recently) that they've paid MS for their OS each time they buy a device with it preloaded.

I find this bizarre - did you think Microsoft were just giving their most important product away for free to anyone buying a computer? Surely anyone who has thought about the issue for more than 2 seconds has figured out that if windows is pre-installed, then you are paying for it with the computer.

KyussBishop · 25-10-2013 04:33PM

I am pie wrote: »

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.

Indeed, though they are certainly afforded all of the credit - that's what these discussions all come down to:
Minimizing credit due to the actual workers, inflating that due to the execs, to try and provide justification for the inflated compensation they get, and to pretend they are 'special', in order to justify rigid hierarchial authority.

opr · 25-10-2013 04:38PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Problem is, Obamacare is (from the little I know of it) so heavily botched by corporate and medical industry interests, that it acts more like a government-enforced subsidy of those industries, that does a really bad job of actually helping the population.

I haven't read up on it enough to know it in great detail, but it's certainly a very bad deal, that isn't a real solution to the problems it is supposedly made to solve.

If anyone can direct towards some good deeper analysis of the bill I'd be grateful please. I know much of it revolves around the fact the US is one of the only countries where there is legislation that bans the government from negotiating drug prices, so drug prices are way higher than elsewhere.

Interesting piece in the Bloomberg business section which profiled the economic team which was picked by Obama to help him create economic strategy. It went through each person who was appointed and ended up concluding that half of these people should not be on an economic team; they should be getting subpoenas.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?sid=aNCFKvAMUQ6w&pid=newsarchive

If it wasn't so serious it would be extremely funny.

Opr

Turtwig · 25-10-2013 04:40PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Serious question. Is it not enough to just disagree with them rather than adding in remarks in attempt to ridicule.

I've noticed it several on posts on different topics. It'd be far more constructive if you just stuck to dealing with their points rather than adding such remarks with hints of sarcasm or irony.
Are you attempting to discuss your position or persuade others of it?
Just my two cents,

KyussBishop · 25-10-2013 04:41PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Using the same measure of unemployment as Europe, the US unemployment rate is 13.6%:
http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

Amirani · 25-10-2013 04:43PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Using the same measure of unemployment as Europe, the US unemployment rate is 13.6%:
http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

Yep. It's surprising the number of people who compare the unemployment rates from the two regions using completely different measures.

Karl Stein · 25-10-2013 04:44PM

Cool Mo D wrote: »

I find this bizarre - did you think Microsoft were just giving their most important product away for free to anyone buying a computer?

Put the strawman and matches down and zip up your pants. Who said anything about free? I'm talking about being essentially forced to buy their OS over-and-over.

If you're really interested in developing an understanding of all this listen to for former intellectual property lawyer Stephen Kinsella's lectures on youtube.

Edit:

From MS's 'Licensing FAQ'.

You may not transfer the software to share licenses between computers. You may transfer Get Genuine Windows software, Pro Pack or Media Center Pack software only together with the licensed computer.

Why the fuck not? Why shouldn't I be able to purchase software and use it on two or three of my devices?

opr · 25-10-2013 04:45PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yeah he was the only one within the sector making horrible decisions. Everyone within that sector was driven by profit/geed with little regard for the consequences. As I don't lavish praise in the way you do for the great successes, I don't demonise on the same scale to that extent the other way. I guess though it's good to put a face on the evil so we don't actually end up looking at the real problem of the system. We'll prop that up, get things going again and better men will ensure things are better this time around :rolleyes:

Opr

Permabear · 25-10-2013 04:48PM

This post has been deleted.

donegal__road · 25-10-2013 04:50PM

@Permabear, in fairness, you can't compare a normal, functioning corporation to Anglo. Anglo was a fraudulent bank.

Permabear · 25-10-2013 05:00PM

This post has been deleted.

KyussBishop · 25-10-2013 05:01PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Except we know that the theory you advocate, of the possibility a wholly unregulated market, is fictional and past evidence gives it a very poor track record of working in reality.

That's also a ridiculous example of blame shifting, from business to government, where it tries to judge the only morally 'right' thing, as following your theory advocating unregulated markets.

It amounts to shifting all blame for immorality onto government, so long as we do not have (purely theoretical - likely impossible to achieve in reality) wholly unregulated markets; as if private interests could do no wrong.

Even then, we still need a public legal system, which itself (in among making unregulated markets impossible) still leaves the ability for excessive compensation, to provide people with enough money to gain advantage and favourable treatment within the legal system, and still provides a motive for political lobbying to influence the legal system in their favour.

These problems are never acknowledged by posters holding Libertarian/free-market views, they are always deflected away from or diminished/dismissed, because if they were acknowledged as real problems, then a lot of stuff becomes impossible to defend.

It's all about ignoring the actual important arguments, and only replying to ancillary points that give the opportunity to repeat the same failed arguments and soundbites, for promoting free market views.

Sleevoo · 25-10-2013 05:05PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Except we know that the theory you advocate, of the possibility a wholly unregulated market, is fictional and past evidence gives it a very poor track record of working in reality.

That's also a ridiculous example of blame shifting, from business to government, where it tries to judge the only morally 'right' thing, as following your theory advocating unregulated markets.

It amounts to shifting all blame for immorality onto government, so long as we do not have (purely theoretical - likely impossible to achieve in reality) wholly unregulated markets; as if private interests could do no wrong.

Even then, we still need a public legal system, which itself (in among making unregulated markets impossible) still leaves the ability for excessive compensation, to provide people with enough money to gain advantage and favourable treatment within the legal system, and still provides a motive for political lobbying to influence the legal system in their favour.

These problems are never acknowledged by posters holding Libertarian/free-market views, they are always deflected away from or diminished/dismissed, because if they were acknowledged as real problems, then a lot of stuff becomes impossible to defend.

It's all about ignoring the actual important arguments, and only replying to ancillary points that give the opportunity to repeat the same failed arguments and soundbites, for promoting free market views.

So the issue you have is with the legal system, not how much ceos earn?

KyussBishop · 25-10-2013 05:06PM

NiallSparky wrote: »

Yep. It's surprising the number of people who compare the unemployment rates from the two regions using completely different measures.

Indeed - found out myself recently, after getting corrected for doing just that

KyussBishop · 25-10-2013 05:17PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well that's an interesting example; a lot of the bank execs around the world, have been deliberately destroying the banks finances (and much of the economy) by basing it on unsustainable debt in the property bubbles, for short-term gains that greatly benefit the execs in the present (through wages, bonuses and other benefits), where they have little incentive to care when it all comes crashing down in the future (they've already made their riches).

So, by rewarding these execs huge sums of money for short-term profits, without any real cap, you provide perverse incentives that can lead to great harm to or the destruction of these companies (and in the banks case, massive economic destruction across the worlds economies...).

An entire worldwide industry, filled with fraud like this, and people like Sean Fitzpatrick being held accountable seems to be an extremely rare exception - a perfect example of the ability for money to allow an entire class of people to evade the legal system, and in general evade any personal accountability for their gigantically reckless actions.

Sleevoo · 25-10-2013 05:20PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Well that's an interesting example; a lot of the bank execs around the world, have been deliberately destroying the banks finances (and much of the economy) by basing it on unsustainable debt in the property bubbles, for short-term gains that greatly benefit the execs in the present (through wages, bonuses and other benefits), where they have little incentive to care when it all comes crashing down in the future (they've already made their riches).

So, by rewarding these execs huge sums of money for short-term profits, without any real cap, you provide perverse incentives that can lead to great harm to or the destruction of these companies (and in the banks case, massive economic destruction across the worlds economies...).

An entire worldwide industry, filled with fraud like this, and people like Sean Fitzpatrick being held accountable seems to be an extremely rare exception - a perfect example of the ability for m2oney to allow an entire class of people to evade the legal system, and in general evade any personal accountability for their gigantically reckless actions.

Thats why strict regulations need to be in place in the banking industry. I dont see the need to cap salary.

KyussBishop · 25-10-2013 05:25PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You reference my posts here, and misrepresent them (and put words in my mouth...), and are not even able to respond to my actual arguments directly.

Nobody said CEO's deserve no credit, and nobody said they deserve all the discredit for every failure.

Your post here displays the very ridicule you claim is not there, throwing around cheap labels like 'lefty logic' and such.

KyussBishop · 25-10-2013 05:29PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If the workers of a company are doing a bad job, it's managements job to sort that out and discipline/fire/replace them, not let it get so bad that the company loses millions over it.

Your arguments show the usual deferral of blame/responsibility away from CEO's/management, and overinflation of the credit due to them.

clairefontaine · 25-10-2013 05:31PM

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.

I'm going to reference NYC here since I know the city well and because its a prime example of a a city being turned into a playground for the very very wealthy. It saddens me to see a city that once had a lot of character and mom and pop shops turned into a corporate wall with nine Duane Reads on the same block. The same thing is happening in other coastal cities too.

NYC maybe exceptional in one regard, its nearly impossible to get evicted once you secure tenancy.

However, there as always homelessness. Some due to drug addiction, some due to returned Vietnam vets who never got proper post war care and ended up walking disasters. Homelessness can also be due to being on the sex offenders list and no one will rent out to you.

NYC is also a very democrat city, despite having a republican mayor (whom I can't stand fwiw). It demands high taxes and also heavily relies on al illegal workforce through illegal immigration. A plantation economy. Given these two factors, that the rich are pretty much the only people who can afford to live theirdue to insane housing costs (also made complex by rent control- landlords have to compensate for the people living their from 1940 and paying $20 a month in rent) as well as the illegal cheap labor population, it has pretty much turned into a third world economy.

You also had this phenomenon where yippies decided to be hip and start moving into Brooklyn, which drove up the costs of the rent for generations who had previously been living there.

San Fransisco is heading the same way, fingers are pointing to restrictions on building and they are looking at a mass exodus.

Some homelessness is also due to our citizenship laws. If you have a child born in the US, they are automatically citizens. So what happens is that the parents get deported and they leave the kids behind, often homeless too.

As for comparing to Europe, I've seen a lot of homelessness in London and Paris too, incredible begging in the latter.

* As an afterthought, I had often visited Ireland as a child and saw kids begging on the streets, especially on O'Connell bridge.

KyussBishop · 25-10-2013 05:32PM

Sleevoo wrote: »

So the issue you have is with the legal system, not how much ceos earn?

The issue is the potential power over society, that excessively large amounts of money and income inequality in general, can provide a class of people.

Sleevoo wrote: »

Thats why strict regulations need to be in place in the banking industry. I dont see the need to cap salary.

I agree on the regulations, though I think the cap is justifiable for other reasons.

clairefontaine · 25-10-2013 05:38PM

I don't agree with salary caps. Regulation maybe, and only some.

We don't have true capitalism in the US. We have corporatism now. My first response to our corporate bailouts was a surprise to hear we were suddenly communists.

And I don't trust Senator Cruz either. His wife works for Goldman Sachs. My prediction is Paul will hang him out to dry in the primaries.

TireeTerror · 25-10-2013 05:41PM

These figures dont really surprise me. There is a reason why Ive only been officially employed for 6 months since I left high school. Im 36 now and have been self employed for all of it, I personally balance the figures by paying 0% tax. I figure I pay enough tax on purchases I make and on driving.

KyussBishop · 25-10-2013 05:42PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

I don't agree with salary caps. Regulation maybe, and only some.

We don't have true capitalism in the US. We have corporatism now. My first response to our corporate bailouts was a surprise to hear we were suddenly communists.

And I don't trust Senator Cruz either. His wife works for Goldman Sachs. My prediction is Paul will hang him out to dry in the primaries.

Well, it doesn't have to be caps, but something to curtail the income inequality - the more and more that worsens, the wider the negative societal effects for the less well off, and the wider the gulf in equal treatment between the lower/middle classes and the powerful.

Salary caps (or tying salaries to a multiple of lowest wage in a company) just seem to be one of the more direct/workable ways of trying to prevent this getting worse, while also going some way to keeping money in companies going to productive purposes, rather than exec pockets.

I don't believe myself, that companies should be vehicles for extracting personal wealth from the economy - that wealth should be truly earned (rather than overinflated beyond real efforts), and in a lot of cases it's not proportionate to what the person really contributes to society.

ulinbac · 25-10-2013 05:43PM

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

I doubt it, we have a progressive tax system where the top 10% of earners are paying 60% of the tax

More you earn the more you pay

Ahhhh NO.

The majority of the top 10%, probably only contribute to less than 5% of the tax generated.

Nearly all countries follow a "Pen Parade", developed by Jan Pen. The majority of the higher earning people do not pay income tax. The reason being is that they are unlikely to work a full time job and using tax avoidance.

These people would own properties, investments etc. and you don't pay income tax on that. They also dispurse their income through shelf (umbrella companies) which are legal.

Before you say I am talking crap, my thesis was based on this exact point! During the Boom years the poor get poorer in relative terms and richer in recessionary times.

Tax revenue is mainly generated between the 3rd to 7th deciles in society. This is why middle income families tend to get hit hardest in budgets!!

If you p*ss off the top 10% its easy for them to relocate and spend money elsewhere.

Cool Mo D · 25-10-2013 05:54PM

[QUOTE=Permabear;87190176
If people see in the news that Company X has suffered millions in losses, and hundreds or thousands of people will lose their jobs, they blame the company's executives for making bad decisions, not the employees for doing poor work. This post had been deleted.[/QUOTE]

That's not true - workers often get blamed for a companies downfall. British Leyland would be a good example, generally described as being done in by shoddy workmanship by unionised workers who didn't really give a damn. Same with GM and co after the American car industry bailout.

Anyway, generally I think an incompetent CEO can ruin a company, and sometimes a brilliant one can make a company, especially in companies trying to do something genuinely innovative, but I would say that the success of the vast majority of large companies is determined by how effective the middle management are. It is the middle management who oversee the day-to-day workings of the company, and manage the nuts and bolts of how customers and products are treated. I would say that companies do not succeed and fail on great CEO strategies, because ideas are cheap, but on how competently they go about their day-to-day business.

Wealth Distribution in the USA

Comments