By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Is "the rich getting richer" a problem?

deskpro2k3 on 13 June 2012
Mr Puggsly said:
deskpro2k3 said:
Mr Puggsly said:
deskpro2k3 said:
Mr Puggsly said:
deskpro2k3 said:
You're either Wealthy or Poor. There is no middle class.

Ridiculous statement is ridiculous.


care to elaborate more on your ridiculous statement?

Maybe you should elaborate on what you consider poor and wealthy.

the middle class is slowly being phased out. Jobs in the USA is being outsourced, and many middle class is becoming dependent on the government. This been going on before 2008. The "working poor" is the group that is rapidly growing.

Go find a graph or article that actually proves what you say. You can't just tell me and expect me to believe it.

More people taking advantage of the government doesn't prove much to me. Most people take advantage of government benefits because pretty much anyone can get them. If you mislead the government about your financial situation you can easily get benefits and I see plenty of people doing it.

Hence, I think the quality of life for the poor is better than ever. This encourages people to become dependent or take advantage of government hand outs.

 

What do I look like your professor? Use the internet for research. You wont find everything listening to the mainstream media.

 

 



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 13 June 2012
spaceguy said:

Unions make all the difference.

 Nothing stimulates the ecconomy like the middle class and this give the rich tax breaks has not worked and never has.

So i'm guessing your conceding my point since these graphs in no way actually disagree with my above graph.... since again, that's household data, not individual data.

Correct?

Union membership loss is another issue, one that's pretty unsolveable since again, union membership lost as nothing to do with "The Rich getting Richer" and everything to do with "Globalization."

 

As for the rest of there chart.  When they say average, do they mean the Mean or the Median?  Or do you not know?

I would GUESS median... since that's what most people use.  Though in general that would indicate expansion on both sides, rather then simple stagnation of the mean.  Espeically when you consider labor force participation rates.   Additionaly worth noting that it uses the 1% as opposed to the rich.

Also interesting thing is that it dips so much under Bush to begin with.  There was a VERY mild recession then... that's about it though.

 

Well that and Grham-Leach-Bliley under Clinton.



SamuelRSmith on 13 June 2012

It seems, on top of everything else, the rich also took away the left's ability to use the enter key.



Aielyn on 13 June 2012
SamuelRSmith said:

It seems, on top of everything else, the rich also took away the left's ability to use the enter key.

I'm not sure to whom you are reacting, but here's a little pro tip: multiple sentences are allowed to be strung together when they follow the same basic point. They're called "paragraphs". I advise you to learn about them, they're advantageous to formation of arguments.



Badassbab on 13 June 2012

I don't think it's a case of the rich getting richer which is the issue, the rich will nearly always get richer. The key issue is when the rich are getting at the expense of others. So for example the board of directors are getting richer by making everyone work longer, for the same or less and by giving each worker ever more tasks without hiring more staff. So while in a way they've made the company more efficient and cost effective, this only really benefits them and no one else. The Government isn't collecting more taxes, the workers aren't getting paid more and society barely benefits from this approach. The only possible benefit is with the extra money the directors are paying themselves they will have more money to spend say on luxury or other items.






Around the Network
SamuelRSmith on 13 June 2012
Aielyn said:
SamuelRSmith said:

It seems, on top of everything else, the rich also took away the left's ability to use the enter key.

I'm not sure to whom you are reacting, but here's a little pro tip: multiple sentences are allowed to be strung together when they follow the same basic point. They're called "paragraphs". I advise you to learn about them, they're advantageous to formation of arguments.


Clearly wasn't responding to you.



richardhutnik on 13 June 2012
Mr Puggsly said:
richardhutnik said:
Mr Puggsly said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
The rich getting richer is a problem if they fail to create jobs. The rich getting richer creates a massive imbalance of resources and and power. Those who become rich kind of have a duty to give back (through domestic job creation) so the economy can run with fluidity. The people need to make money to spend money to keep the economy running and not being rich need a safety net of funds to fall back on through savings. The w. ealthy run the show in America because of the great imbalance at the expense of the people and its become obvious who congress supports. I guess history repeats itself.

I can't help but think... more jobs would be created if job creators didn't have to put up with so many regulations.

Frankly, I don't have any bitterness towards companies hiring overseas. Those people arguably work harder, you can pay them less, give less benefits, and they're less likely to sue. In America, well you just wait for your employees or customers to sue you. They're always looking for an excuse.

So the goal is a race to the bottom?  What is the point in having a job, if it doesn't enable you to survive?

And you don't like regulations?  Would it be right to assume you would want fracking to go unregulated also?

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/10/zakaria-the-game-changer-in-the-geopolitics-of-energy/?hpt=hp_bn2

I think people often want more than to just survive. Even those who contribute nothing feel entitled to more than that.

So... I have to either be for all or against all regulations? Geez, I didn't know it had to be so black and white.

Until you specify your issues with regulation, naming details and so on, your statement is made to be a blanket statement against regulation in general, and how it hinders the creation of jobs.  

I gave one example in favor of fracking, that says there needs to be more regulation on it.  The industry has argued against it, and same is the general GOP line which mirrors what you said, how regulations cost jobs.  Fracking has a Halliburton exemption regarding what makes up the compounds in the fluid used in fracking.  It was put in there by the Bush administration.  All this was done in the name of deregulation.



richardhutnik on 13 June 2012
Aielyn said:
SamuelRSmith said:

It seems, on top of everything else, the rich also took away the left's ability to use the enter key.

I'm not sure to whom you are reacting, but here's a little pro tip: multiple sentences are allowed to be strung together when they follow the same basic point. They're called "paragraphs". I advise you to learn about them, they're advantageous to formation of arguments.

I am going to push this in the realm of Godwin's Law, by using the word "grammar Nazi".  You know you are running into inane territory when suddenly a thread gets into nitpicking grammar, and language structure used, in an attempt to score points.  Unless the subject is about the use of grammar, this is a line that really doesn't add anything to the thread.  A discussion is not a sport you score points on and win.  It, ideally, should provide illumination.



SamuelRSmith on 13 June 2012
richardhutnik said:
Aielyn said:
SamuelRSmith said:

It seems, on top of everything else, the rich also took away the left's ability to use the enter key.

I'm not sure to whom you are reacting, but here's a little pro tip: multiple sentences are allowed to be strung together when they follow the same basic point. They're called "paragraphs". I advise you to learn about them, they're advantageous to formation of arguments.

I am going to push this in the realm of Godwin's Law, by using the word "grammar Nazi".  You know you are running into inane territory when suddenly a thread gets into nitpicking grammar, and language structure used, in an attempt to score points.  Unless the subject is about the use of grammar, this is a line that really doesn't add anything to the thread.  A discussion is not a sport you score points on and win.  It, ideally, should provide illumination.


Just a joke, my man. Haven't even read the thread. Just scrolling through the posts and saw the same images that I see posted in every thread, nowadays, followed by walls of text with a load of capitals.

Not even gonna read that shit, let alone respond to it.



Kasz216 on 13 June 2012
Badassbab said:
I don't think it's a case of the rich getting richer which is the issue, the rich will nearly always get richer. The key issue is when the rich are getting at the expense of others. So for example the board of directors are getting richer by making everyone work longer, for the same or less and by giving each worker ever more tasks without hiring more staff. So while in a way they've made the company more efficient and cost effective, this only really benefits them and no one else. The Government isn't collecting more taxes, the workers aren't getting paid more and society barely benefits from this approach. The only possible benefit is with the extra money the directors are paying themselves they will have more money to spend say on luxury or other items.

Actually, if they the empoyees are workin longer for the same amount and the employers are making more money.  The government is getting more in taxes.

Additionally, say the employees are working for less... and the employers are just "stealing" that money.... the government still gets more in taxes thanks to progressive taxation.