Brand New Chart Illustrates How The Rich Have Gamed The System

[Jhhnn]

No, it's just a matter of fact that if shop laws were on their side unions would limit membership same as similar profession associations like AMA / the bar.

Just because you're evidently far too dumb to understand simple self-interest does't mean your arguments are any good.

Mere projection & assertion of opinion as fact.

 

[agent00f]

Mere projection & assertion of opinion as fact.

Pleading ignorance won't help you any more than those you carry water for

https://www.jstor.org/stable/30030646?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Conservatives are largely correct that american unions were often pretty racist when white nationalist democrats were running their show, before civil rights legislation put that party on the same side as minorities.

Of course it's easy to see why a D party shill would act as you do.

 

[Jhhnn]

Probative conclusions about causes and cures in this context are difficult, because there is no separate control group America with one or another variable changed. To the extent Americans revere wealth and aspire to affluence, there may be some degree of sympathy for the idea that while, for example, a progressive tax system is just, there is an upper limit to what is generally considered fair.

And yet there is no upper limit wrt fairness when it comes to ownership & income, certainly not among conservatives.

What they understand least of all is that over concentration of wealth & economic power is inherently unstable & a big part of the boom/bust aspects of capitalism. They also don't understand how a substantial portion of those enormous incomes has been used to warp politics & public opinion.

I mean, if you think like rich people then you can be like rich people, right?

 

[crashtech]

And yet there is no upper limit wrt fairness when it comes to ownership & income, certainly not among conservatives.

What they understand least of all is that over concentration of wealth & economic power is inherently unstable & a big part of the boom/bust aspects of capitalism. They also don't understand how a substantial portion of those enormous incomes has been used to warp politics & public opinion.

I mean, if you think like rich people then you can be like rich people, right?

I would not be so quick to generalize, from my discussions and understanding, there is deep concern over the widening wealth gap. I don't think defining and acknowledging the problem is terribly controversial across the spectrum; crafting acceptable solutions is the hard part.

 

[hal2kilo]

That's been the bane of the Dem Party since Reagan unleashed his campaign for the wealthy. There is not a consistent carrier of news that penetrates and captures audiences whose main concern is where their next meal and rent is coming from. That segment of the Dem demographic are too busy scraping by to get informed of how they're being pushed into poverty and then that cycle feeds on itself.

The very wealthy got us right where they want us. As the middle class and the poor represent the vast majority of the nation which should carry the vast amount of the vote of whose concerns are voiced through, that peculiar circumstance should be reversed but it ain't.

Add to that, the GOP, as masterfully puppeteered by the very wealthy, have made emotionally triggered non-economic single issue items the main concerns of their constituency and all the Dems have are boring facts and figures that point to how the class warfare being conducted by the very wealthy is driving them further and further down the economic ladder. That critically important issue is being brushed aside by the GOP middle class and poor constituency in favor of things like the vile gay rights movement, murderous Planned Parenthood and Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi.

edit - Even now as Trump and the GOP led House and Senate hammers home in no uncertain terms their allegiance to the very wealthy via their top ticket legislative priorities that they're pursuing, their constituency completely ignores how their legislators are in turn ignoring their concerns in favor giving tax cuts for the rich and deregulating the hell out of the banksters and big business in order for them to gain even more control over who should be favored by our politicians.

I find it funny, that we are somehow drowning in liberal media, when all of the companies are owned by mega million/billionares. That's why this information does not get put out to the people on a daily basis.

 

[Jhhnn]

Pleading ignorance won't help you any more than the people you carry water for

https://www.jstor.org/stable/30030646?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Conservatives are largely correct that unions were often pretty racist when white nationalist democrats were running the show, before civil rights legislation put that party on the side as minorities.

And the inevitable jump/ shift to racism, as if that were the subject at hand. Racist or not, Unions were foundational to the creation of the broad middle class as we've known it.

I'll bet you've never been to Ludlow-

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3389/3453614201_9e4fc4dac2_z.jpg?zz=1

That was back when Capitalists just murdered the little people who stood up to them. It's not like human nature has changed in the meanwhile, either. Witness Putin's Russia & much of the developing world.

 

[agent00f]

And the inevitable jump/ shift to racism, as if that were the subject at hand. Racist or not, Unions were foundational to the creation of the broad middle class as we've known it.

I'll bet you've never been to Ludlow-

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3389/3453614201_9e4fc4dac2_z.jpg?zz=1

That was back when Capitalists just murdered the little people who stood up to them. It's not like human nature has changed in the meanwhile, either. Witness Putin's Russia & much of the developing world.

I've mentioned before that people like you only happened on the right side of history by complete serendipity. If this were the 50's D party shills would be other side of segregation and such.

Also worth re-iterating why it's in your interest to willfully ignore illuminating aspects of american labor history.

 

[Jaskalas]

I guess we can give all the money to gubment instead in order to trickle it down?

At 25% tax, distributed evenly, every single person would have home, transport, and education paid for. In full.
That's how much wealth is out there.

 

[hal2kilo]

For binary thinkers, I guess there is only ever one other (assumed worst) option, amirite? But hey, if you like to continue the status quo of the gubment funneling your money to their preferred entitled classes, then go for it!

I just don't get this with shit-for-brains conservatives: "IF you tax the wealthy, then you are giving your money to the government!" ....what. the. fuck? Somehow, entire swaths of this country have been convinced that government theft of their own money, funneled to the entitled "job creators" in order to replace those actual jobs with robots and overseas labor (so those guys can afford second yachts!) is somehow patriotc...and that reversing this behavior represents the actual theft of your money?

mind-boggling. The reality is that your money has been stolen for decades, and you are blissfully satisfied with this arrangement. reclaiming it is somehow communism?

go figure. I guess I've learned never to overestimate the level of reason the typical conservative will try to employ when confronted with reality.

We've had capitalist propaganda rained on us since the inception of this country. Not getting to keep all of your money means someone is stealing from you don't you know.

 

[crashtech]

Perhaps what needs selling to the American people is that trickle-down combined with globalism is broken. It seems likely that either one in the absence of the other would not have resulted in the situation we have today. The long and continuing decline of our manufacturing base is a big part of why we see wage stagnation.

 

[agent00f]

For binary thinkers, I guess there is only ever one other (assumed worst) option, amirite? But hey, if you like to continue the status quo of the gubment funneling your money to their preferred entitled classes, then go for it!

I just don't get this with shit-for-brains conservatives: "IF you tax the wealthy, then you are giving your money to the government!" ....what. the. fuck? Somehow, entire swaths of this country have been convinced that government theft of their own money, funneled to the entitled "job creators" in order to replace those actual jobs with robots and overseas labor (so those guys can afford second yachts!) is somehow patriotc...and that reversing this behavior represents the actual theft of your money?

mind-boggling. The reality is that your money has been stolen for decades, and you are blissfully satisfied with this arrangement. reclaiming it is somehow communism?

go figure. I guess I've learned never to overestimate the level of reason the typical conservative will try to employ when confronted with reality.

We've had capitalist propaganda rained on us since the inception of this country. Not getting to keep all of your money means someone is stealing from you don't you know.

Liberals love to feel great by believing conservatives are all paste-eating helmet wearing levels of dumb, when in reality it's hardly the degens who can't understand how simple political alliances works.

 

[Jhhnn]

I would not be so quick to generalize, from my discussions and understanding, there is deep concern over the widening wealth gap. I don't think defining and acknowledging the problem is terribly controversial across the spectrum; crafting acceptable solutions is the hard part.

Please. The only answer is taxes that are steeply progressive at the tippy-top, both for incomes & estates.

You don't have to like it to realize that it's a matter of economic self defense for the general population, particularly in the face of technological job elimination.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I would not be so quick to generalize, from my discussions and understanding, there is deep concern over the widening wealth gap. I don't think defining and acknowledging the problem is terribly controversial across the spectrum; crafting acceptable solutions is the hard part.

While politicians go from denying, deflecting, and diverting, the gap is widening at an enormous pace.

Another round of bailouts is already planned. Tax payers continue to get screwed in every part of the deal.

 

[agent00f]

I would not be so quick to generalize, from my discussions and understanding, there is deep concern over the widening wealth gap. I don't think defining and acknowledging the problem is terribly controversial across the spectrum; crafting acceptable solutions is the hard part.

Of course poorer conservatives are concerned about their economic status, it's just a lower political priority than retaining the caste system. This makes perfect rational sense given they know they're never going to be rich anyway, but it's a lot easier to keep on top of the ethnics.

Political players never talk about this because it's against the self-interested party line msg of most all involved.

 

[Jhhnn]

Perhaps what needs selling to the American people is that trickle-down combined with globalism is broken. It seems likely that either one in the absence of the other would not have resulted in the situation we have today. The long and continuing decline of our manufacturing base is a big part of why we see wage stagnation.

85% of job loss is due to automation.

 

[Jhhnn]

I've mentioned before that people like you only happened on the right side of history by complete serendipity. If this were the 50's D party shills would be other side of segregation and such.

Also worth re-iterating why it's in your interest to willfully ignore illuminating aspects of american labor history.

And the double down on diversion & personal attack via innuendo.

And, hey, that's usually a way for right wingers to divert away from the political realities of today, the result of Repubs' southern strategy.

 

[crashtech]

Please. The only answer is taxes that are steeply progressive at the tippy-top, both for incomes & estates.

You don't have to like it to realize that it's a matter of economic self defense for the general population, particularly in the face of technological job elimination.

The devil is in the details, as always. In the past, capital flight was not as much of a problem as it is today. That said, I am in favor of aggressively seeking out and closing loopholes, as well as incrementally increasing taxes on top earners, paying close attention to see if the actual result matches the expected outcome.

 

[crashtech]

And the double down on diversion & personal attack via innuendo.

And, hey, that's usually a way for right wingers to divert away from the political realities of today, the result of Repubs' southern strategy.

Pardon my curiosity, but to whom is this comment addressed?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Pardon my curiosity, but to whom is this comment addressed?

Agent00f, you must have him on ignore.

I was using the ignore function for a bit, but it makes things very confusing, especially from the tapatalk app

 

[Jhhnn]

Pardon my curiosity, but to whom is this comment addressed?

Not you. I inadvertently made two posts into one. Refresh the page.

 

[agent00f]

And the double down on diversion & personal attack via innuendo.

And, hey, that's usually a way for right wingers to divert away from the political realities of today, the result of Repubs' southern strategy.

No, keeping competition out is pretty integral to a labor caste system, and dumbshit tier democrats are pretty integral to republican's southern strategy.

 

[crashtech]

85% of job loss is due to automation.

That's a problem that I will freely admit that, once carefully considered, seems enormous and intractable, not just from the standpoint of people providing for themselves, but with finding purpose, which imo is nearly if not more important.

 

[interchange]

Wealth distribution, growth rate, and income inequality are massive problems and this graph is indeed scary.

And, for reference, here is a graph on entitlement spending:

I don't draw any conclusions on this, but I think it is naive to expect that Republican economic policy is responsible. If any such conclusion was reasonable based on this extremely limited set of data, it would be that increasing entitlement spending is responsible for greater inequality. Certainly both graphs are moving in the same direction.

Obviously, it is not that simple. But that's my point. Demonstrating that Republican economics are wrong carries a potentially dangerous consequence: assuming that Democrat economics are right.

To me, the data suggest both are wrong.

And if I earnestly felt I knew better, I wouldn't be doing my day job nor posting on these forms, but I do have some hypotheses that may be worthy of exploration:

1. First, we focus so heavily on the income side of personal finance that we neglect both costs and assets. Growing income itself is useless if costs keep pace, and if the balance isn't positive, asset growth is impossible. Thus, not only are incomes skewed, wealth is too. Wealth might be more important, and certainly we have seen things like home ownership and retirement investment plunge.
2. Within costs, fixed costs are much more important. If it costs everyone a basic $20k to live and costs scale from there depending on lifestyle, changing that $20k to $30k will cripple the lower earners and do almost nothing to the higher earners.
3. You can argue as to why, but for whatever reason even people who can afford to save or invest are doing so less often.
4. I see less and less alignment between employer and employee, customer and merchant. We are less and less seeing each other as people who are like us and more and more as things who want from us. This disincentivizes cooperation. With good alignment, it could be possible for many businesses to pay employees more and profit by doing so because they get more in return. It ain't working that way anymore, so each side is focused on themselves in return. And the guys with the resources are going to win more often than not.

 

[agent00f]

Wealth distribution, growth rate, and income inequality are massive problems and this graph is indeed scary.

And, for reference, here is a graph on entitlement spending:

I don't draw any conclusions on this, but I think it is naive to expect that Republican economic policy is responsible. If any such conclusion was reasonable based on this extremely limited set of data, it would be that increasing entitlement spending is responsible for greater inequality. Certainly both graphs are moving in the same direction.

Obviously, it is not that simple. But that's my point. Demonstrating that Republican economics are wrong carries a potentially dangerous consequence: assuming that Democrat economics are right.

To me, the data suggest both are wrong.

And if I earnestly felt I knew better, I wouldn't be doing my day job nor posting on these forms, but I do have some hypotheses that may be worthy of exploration:

1. First, we focus so heavily on the income side of personal finance that we neglect both costs and assets. Growing income itself is useless if costs keep pace, and if the balance isn't positive, asset growth is impossible. Thus, not only are incomes skewed, wealth is too. Wealth might be more important, and certainly we have seen things like home ownership and retirement investment plunge.
2. Within costs, fixed costs are much more important. If it costs everyone a basic $20k to live and costs scale from there depending on lifestyle, changing that $20k to $30k will cripple the lower earners and do almost nothing to the higher earners.
3. You can argue as to why, but for whatever reason even people who can afford to save or invest are doing so less often.
4. I see less and less alignment between employer and employee, customer and merchant. We are less and less seeing each other as people who are like us and more and more as things who want from us. This disincentivizes cooperation. With good alignment, it could be possible for many businesses to pay employees more and profit by doing so because they get more in return. It ain't working that way anymore, so each side is focused on themselves in return. And the guys with the resources are going to win more often than not.

All data incl history shows capitalism is naturally predisposed to divergent outcomes. But it's nice to know even hardcore adherent agree that's difficult to counteract.

Also pretty hilarious when people present the heritage foundation seriously.

 

[interchange]

All data incl history shows capitalism is naturally predisposed to divergent outcomes. But it's nice to know even hardcore adherent agree that's difficult to counteract.

Also pretty hilarious when people present the heritage foundation seriously.

I noticed the irony of randomly picking that graph when I went to post it. I guess I kept it as self deprecating humor. But it doesn't matter unless the graph is wrong. I didn't fact check it, but if it's wrong I'll face my shame head on.

Anyway, I actually agree with you on capitalism in a restricted sense. It's a prisoner's dilemma. If both parties never choose the most favorable outcome for the system (cooperation), then divergence collapse is inevitable.

And you would, and always have, argue that people only ever act in their own interest and thus, once they learn that their individual outcome is never better by cooperation, they never will.

And even this I agree with in a restricted sense. Except human self interest is not always directly hedonic. The thing most in the interest of the self is to expand one's positive sense of self, and that is often by bettering one's sense of self by bettering a group they identify with.

And so here we are. The fate of the free world rests on the capacity of people to quit being selfish bastards and think that their boss or employee are people they like and want to help. We are failing at this.

I suppose we could call it a day and give up. In which case you can be Czar, but I'm a long way from quitting so you'll have to tolerate me a bit longer.

And you thought I was too dumb to understand.