Has wealth and power been concentrated in too few people in America?

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Goldbug
Wealth concentration is not a problem at all unless it comes about through force...and the only entity on planet earth with a legal monopoly on the use of force is, you guessed it...government.

So you'd in favor of some sort of pseudo-feudal system?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: inspire
There's just a ton of ways to present the distribution of wealth, and the football field seems misleading , as does the ruler. If you consider the distribution roughly normal, having people with very low and very high incomes isn't unexpected. Even a non-symmetric shape would tell a similar story. The site talks a lot about understanding statistics, and I find that inverting a pdf to make a point doesn't bolster understanding.

You seem to be remarkably confused to me - bell curves, which are relevant to random distribution, have nothing to do with the data under discussion, which is well presented.

The fact it's a football field is irrelevant, except to suggest the scale of the chart, how small a sliver it is at the high end. The chart is perfectly appropriate for the point it's showing.

I'm not confused at all. Bell curves have countless applications in our everyday lives and explain a plethora of natural phenomena. In this situation, we're talking about the distribution of wealth. Please explain how that stirkes you as confused.

We're talkng about the distribution of income, actually though the same point and an even more concentrated curve apply to wealth. Bell curves are about random distribution. Income and wealth are not randomly distributed. Feel free to put a bell curve over the graph which will only further show how far from 'random' the distribution is. What do you want to do with the bell curve?

How confused you are: you attacked the linear distribution graph - but with no coherent reason, no coherent suggestion, just throwing out the name 'bell curve'.

The distribution of wealth is similar to other distributional curves. The presentation on the website you linked to seems to neglect this, and presents the data in a way that draws attention to one tail of the distribution, by essentially switching the axes of income and percentage of the population. And perhaps it is appropriate to demonstrate a point, but it seems quite leading, which just seems a bit ironic that the site has a fairly noticeable warning about understanding statistics.

It draws attention to one tail *because the one tail is so hugely different*. There's nothing wrong with that. What draws the attention isn't anything the graph does, it's *the data*.

What are you talking about 'switching the axes' - it uses to axes that are appropriate.

What do you mean leading? It lists the data and shows how the concentration is huge. That's not 'leading', it's the appropriate conclusion.

You don't seem to be understanding this relatively simple concept. We're talking about a distribution. When we do that in any type of quantitaive sense, we look at the shape and curve of a distribution. We do it for age, we do it for income, we do it for health outcomes. It happens every day and rarely is science ever absent of it. The graph, as I've said twice previously now, pulls a bit of a red herring by putting income on the y-axis and percentage of population on the x-axis.

However, any probability-plot, which one would typically think of when plotting 'percentage of a population' on an axis, would do the exact opposite. This is also why a distributional curve wouldn't fit over it - because switching the axes screws with the calculus. The presentation shown is accurate, but not very comprehensive, and not standard. I know how to make graphs that tell one side of a story - I do it for a living. I don't see any other way to explain this to you, so if you still disagree, I've no problems with leaving it there.

We're not communicating on this very well, because you still sound very confused to me. We can agree on one thing, that graphs CAN be made to mislead - but this one doesn't.

We apparently both have some idea about the issue (I presume from your reference to what you do, I'm curious to hear more what you do that involved 'misleading with graphs'.

In illustrating that wealth is concentrated at the top, it makes sense to draw a horizontal line representing the population from least to most; and to have a y axis drawing the incomes, which just happens to show the skyrocketing line on the right, because that's the fact of how incomes are distributed.

How would YOU accurately illustrate the data which contains such a shocking concentration at the top, which accurately displays that, yet corrects your concern that's still unclear?

I guess you can just describe what your graph would look like - and how it's an improvement.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Yes, but the blame lies squarely on the shoulder of consumers. Rather than saving and investing and building their own wealth, most people borrow their way into massive debt so they can buy overpriced trinkets and toys from those wealthy individuals.

Thank you. Finally someone that sees the truth. It's not some conspiracy of rich white men and Jews to steal the wealth from world. Sure the rich get richer, BUT the poor get richer too, if they choose to do so.
The middle class is growning, and the "poor" might not be so poor if they didn't spend $100 on a pair of jeans or some other article of clothing so they could look like their favorite rap star.
No one is forcing the "poor" to buy fashionable clothes or iphones or buying cheap cars and putting $10,000 in lift kits and rims/tires on them.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Yes, but the blame lies squarely on the shoulder of consumers. Rather than saving and investing and building their own wealth, most people borrow their way into massive debt so they can buy overpriced trinkets and toys from those wealthy individuals.

Don't forget stagnant income and increasing cost of living. 😀Your rants, you silly boy.:beer::laugh:

Cost of living has not increased. You could live very cheaply if you live a 1950s lifestyle. What has increased is the cost of luxuries.

You and your silly lack of comprehension.

In 1950, my $200,000 home would have been a Chicago area 10,000sq ft mansion with servants quarters. Now, its just a relatively modest 2000 sq ft in a very cheap part of the country.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Phokus
globalization... it's gotten a lot more people rich, but at the same time, more people are competing for the same jobs as a result (and many of the jobs, americans are losing to outsourcing).

Edit: Just today i got an email from a guy in india who works for our corporate accounting... he handles accounting for our hq, not just india. That position was probably previously in America.

So what? Why do you hate foreigners?

Its not hating foreigners, its hating having to compete with people with a far lower cost of living.

I'm solidly middle class on my salary here in the United States. If I were making this much in India, I'd be in the top 1%.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I would LOVE to see someone take the graph in Craig's link and re-toll it to show income tax paid in the same way.

Imagine what that graph would look like...

It would be even worse, since the people on the left side of the 50 yard line pay almost no taxes while the people on right side pay nearly all the taxes. And the people at the 1 yard line pay 39% of all income taxes in this country.

Yes, the distribution of income in this country is greatly skewed with a small amount of people making a huge amount of money, but the distribution of income taxes is skewed to an even greater amount with essentially half the country being given a free ride.

Yes, the 99% of the public on the bottom have nothing to do with the wealth the few at the top earn all on their own - the LEECHES who provide nothing but all the labor.

There's no issue at all with the trillions in wealth generated by the bottom 99% being taken by the few at the top with less than half returned in income taxes.

In fact I think I'll tell my city today that the citizens owe me a billion dollars, and I'll be FURIOUS to pay back a few hundred million of that in taxes.

Chill Craig. If you have an argument beyond your tantrum, it's that the poor make the rich's money for them, and thus the rich's taxes cover theirs. I still call shens, though. I honestly think it's a load of class-warfare horsecrap whenever someone tries to say that execs don't do anything to earn money. Some of them suck, but some of them do the world a lot of good. Some of them get paid handsomely for failing, and some of them get paid peanuts for a respectable job.

In the end, the correction is going to come from investors instituting reforms on executive compensation to the tune of tying not just bonuses to outstanding performance, but penalties to sucking. It won't come from class-warfare-demagoguery - not anytime soon.

You are yet again confused - andI tire of the tedious corrections. You're approachig rude with the recklessness with which you throw out misrepresentations to be cleaned up.

If you're tired, then you might try giving it a rest for a bit. I'd be a lot more open to discussion if you could drop the pretentiousness, and lead off a post without patroning the person you're addressing.

First, the point I'm making is about the owners/wealthy class, not the execs, who only somewhat overlap. And no one said the execs "don't do anything to earn money" - quite the contrary, I think the execs are some of the most productive people and they fully deserve much higher compensation for that. Your straw man is just that. There are issues with corrupt, excessive compensation, but that's a relatively small side issue to this.

And my reply to your post would have been dramatically different had I been able to pick up on that distinction.

Warren Buffer knows a bit more than you on the issue of class warfare, and he said that class warfare is happening, and his side is clearly winning.

Okay? Good for him. I know it's happening. It's also being exploited for votes and followed by empty promises.

You are not going to be able to discuss the issue if you are limited to 'code words' like 'class warfare' you throw aroudn as if they are actual arguments.

Now see - it seemed to me that was exactly what you were doing there. And I was calling you out on it. Now that we're on the same page, why don't you tell me a bit more about the owners/wealthy class you were referring to.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
[Ultimately what do you think will happen if everyone in the world reads these books and donates to #1-#5?

The trends are that the public develops an understanding of the relevant economic and political issues, and our democracy is greatly strengthened by having that informed populace, so that the range for viable political views are within a reasonable range of progressive views good for the public, and the net result is a great increase in prosperity both overall and how it's well-distributed, and in freedoms as well.

For a taste, see the changes in American society between 1930 and 1950 from FDR.

Here is where my 'if I have no power over it why worry about' ideal comes in. With all of this being said I still fail to see what an informed populace matters. I haven't read a book about this but still know that money means power. Even a beggar on the street knows this. The question remains, what do you do about it? Because the rich aren't going to just give it all away. That leaves us with taxing the hell out of them to redistribute the wealth... Which is what all of this really boils down to.

There's a lot more to it than the tax rate; again, it requires understanding the isues to have a coherent, unified political movement - the progressive movement.

Being informed will help you understand why to support that particular ovement - without being informed, you are unlikely to do so, not seeing much reason to.

I'm a middle class guy. I've worked hard to get where I am just like I'm sure the rich people have as well (self made ones that is). However, I will grant that if a tax increase must be imposed due to some new government spending (uhc?)... Better them than me.

Things were hopeless for labor at the turn of the 20th century, when the factories could pay starvation wages and people had to take them. What could be done?

What was needed was for a unifying political movement supporting labor rights to develop, and it did, and it brougth great improvement. Similar situation here.

You as an individual against the employers were screwed. You voting for a good political movement along with others, were what was needed.

Why are we dancing around the question here? You're the educated one on this topic so please enlighten us all with a direct answer...

What do you, based on your self education, propose we do about it? You've said taxes already. What else?

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Yes, but the blame lies squarely on the shoulder of consumers. Rather than saving and investing and building their own wealth, most people borrow their way into massive debt so they can buy overpriced trinkets and toys from those wealthy individuals.

But, but I DID save. And I lost my money in the S&L debacle. Then I saved again, and I lost my money during the current sub-prime crisis.

Hmm.... maybe you don't know shit about how to get wealthy?
Yep, that's it.

Apparently neither do you.

touche

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Craig your link seems to include some totally BS statements.

In March 2006 Forbes reported 793 billionaires in the US with combined net worth of $2.6 trillion. In March 2007 Forbes reported 946 billionaires in the US with combined net worth of $3.5 trillion

The 2008 Forbes 400 link claims that the richest 400 people are worth $1.57 trillion. The minimum amount of money to be on this list $1.3 billion.

So if we assume that the 546 billionaires not on this list were all worth $1.3 billion and did the math the total wealth of these 946 people would be $2.2 trillion.. quite a bit lower than what your link claims.

BTW Forbes claims that the total value of the 400 richest Americans went up last year, so you can't blame the difference between your link and Forbes on the shrinking economy.

I'm pleasantly surprised you looked at the link at all. I'll have to glance at the issue you raise - what other alleged errors did you find, if any, was it only that one?

There are MANY major problems with your link

1. The guy also has a site called "9/11: Speak Out" where he outs himself as a conspiracy believer, and thus illustrates the inability to understand logic.

2. There is absolutely NO reference to where all his 'facts' come from. NOT one!!!!!

3. He seems to confuse 'income' and 'wealth' as his one page PDF file shows clearly.
According to him during Bill Gates best year his net worth increased by $50 billion which when turned into $100 bills would be a stack 30 miles tall.
Back on his main page the far right amount is a stack 30 miles tall. But Gates did not have an income of $50 billion during that one year, his net worth may have increased by that much (highly unlikely, but since the guy posts no sources we can't prove that he is full of crap) but his personal income was certainly NOT $50 billion.

Again, the PDF file claims that $1 million in income would be a stack 3.3 feet high. Which means a guy who made $100 million in one year would only have a stack 333 feet high.

Now according to the IRS linkthe top 400 income earners in 2006 had an average income of $263 million with a minimum income $110 million. That means the average income of the top 400 income earners in 2006 would have a stack of bills 867 feet tall. That is certainly one hell of a tall stack of bills, but it is FAR from the 30 mile tall stack used on the graph.

Let's put it this way...
867 feet fits into 30 miles 182 times. So the red line at the far right of the field is perhaps 100 times taller than it should be. (We don't know how much the highest income is for any year because the IRS does not release that figure, only the data covering the 400 richest)

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: Craig234
The idiocy and lies this thread brought out are appalling.

Click here for the answer to the OP.

There's a bell curve hiding in there somewhere. Presenting it as solely conclusive is appalling.

Can you restate the point you're trying to make? I can't make sense of your post.

Craig, what in your opinion has caused this concentration of wealth?

If you are asking and not simply fishing for a rhetorical response against your opinion, I'll say that's a big, good question I will defer giving an inadequate answer to for now -

But, I'll suggest one part of the answer, the Phillips books I posted above, "Wealth in America: How Great Fortunes and Government Created America's Aristocracy".

It's not all that current to the current Bush-era issues, but it's a good book on the longer-term development of the 'big money' concentration of wealth. A bit dry, though.

My short answer, though, would simply be that wealth has created the machinery for perpetuating its own concentration, overpowering democracy in the process.

As I mentioned above, that includes everything from the media to the political system to the 'think tanks' whose mission it is to propagandize the public on wealth's behalf.

You can see the well-tested propaganda phrases from those think tanks in many posters here very consistently, defending that ideology.

So, what you are saying is that big business and the wealthy in general have been able petition government far more successfully than the average citizen?

And can you not see that empowering government only empowers those who can successfully petition it? Empowering government only further empowers big business and the wealthy?

Of course, your answer I assume will be that the solution is not to limit the power of government, but to "have the right people" governing. And I think thousands of years of history shows that to be a fantasy, something those who wrote the Constitution understood, and you do not.

I also believe that the concentration of wealth has occurred not only by the reasons you stated above, but also by the massive business cycles created by the Federal Reserve. The wealthy win out more so during the booms, and the poor and middle class are the bigger losers during the busts. And when new money is created out of thin air, those who receive it first, big businesses, win again because by the time that money trickles down to the average Joe, it is partially devalued. Even a few percentage points in the short run end up being big numbers in the long run.

Bamacre, we have a basic difference that I don't know how to resolve in this post that wasn't resolved in months of posts.

Here is MY position: that the concentration of wealth and power causes 'corruption', basically bad things for the rest of people as the degree pursued to protect that advantage results in tyranny. You don't do anything out of jealousy to the guy in your town who makes threee times as much, but if you are someone who owns billions, your class takes measures to protect them from 'the hordes' that are more tyrannical the greater the gap.

My position further is that democracy is a unique potential remedy - potential because it's only a remedy if people vote the right way and are not fooled to vote the wrong way.

That provides for the 'common good' to carry a lot more political weight than it would if left in the hands of the private, concentrated hands who are not subject to elections.

Democracy works imperfectly, but it's had a great improvement for the masses with its effects in forcing the wealthy to have limits on their power used for tyranny.

Now as I understand YOUR position, you are giving attention only to the flaws with democracy and virtually no credit for its role in empowering the public interest.

You seem to miss that crippling the government would transfer the same power into the hands of the few most powerful private hands and return to tyranny with no remedy.

We may agree all day on examples of the problems with the current situaiton, but my remedy is for the public to get better educated and elect people who wil represent the public interest and be able to provide the counter to the powerful private people our founfing fathers intended, while you seem to have a very different remedy that it seems to me is unwittingly against democracy and will greatly harm the public interest, though that is not your motive.

We're both claiming the vision of the founding fathers fits our position; my positions are quite consistent with their views and the system they set up. Of course that can only be in the general sense, since they had their own fair share of disagreements. So we probably don't want to get dragged too much into a war of founders and stick to the issues.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: inspire
There's just a ton of ways to present the distribution of wealth, and the football field seems misleading , as does the ruler. If you consider the distribution roughly normal, having people with very low and very high incomes isn't unexpected. Even a non-symmetric shape would tell a similar story. The site talks a lot about understanding statistics, and I find that inverting a pdf to make a point doesn't bolster understanding.

You seem to be remarkably confused to me - bell curves, which are relevant to random distribution, have nothing to do with the data under discussion, which is well presented.

The fact it's a football field is irrelevant, except to suggest the scale of the chart, how small a sliver it is at the high end. The chart is perfectly appropriate for the point it's showing.

I'm not confused at all. Bell curves have countless applications in our everyday lives and explain a plethora of natural phenomena. In this situation, we're talking about the distribution of wealth. Please explain how that stirkes you as confused.

We're talkng about the distribution of income, actually though the same point and an even more concentrated curve apply to wealth. Bell curves are about random distribution. Income and wealth are not randomly distributed. Feel free to put a bell curve over the graph which will only further show how far from 'random' the distribution is. What do you want to do with the bell curve?

How confused you are: you attacked the linear distribution graph - but with no coherent reason, no coherent suggestion, just throwing out the name 'bell curve'.

The distribution of wealth is similar to other distributional curves. The presentation on the website you linked to seems to neglect this, and presents the data in a way that draws attention to one tail of the distribution, by essentially switching the axes of income and percentage of the population. And perhaps it is appropriate to demonstrate a point, but it seems quite leading, which just seems a bit ironic that the site has a fairly noticeable warning about understanding statistics.

It draws attention to one tail *because the one tail is so hugely different*. There's nothing wrong with that. What draws the attention isn't anything the graph does, it's *the data*.

What are you talking about 'switching the axes' - it uses to axes that are appropriate.

What do you mean leading? It lists the data and shows how the concentration is huge. That's not 'leading', it's the appropriate conclusion.

You don't seem to be understanding this relatively simple concept. We're talking about a distribution. When we do that in any type of quantitaive sense, we look at the shape and curve of a distribution. We do it for age, we do it for income, we do it for health outcomes. It happens every day and rarely is science ever absent of it. The graph, as I've said twice previously now, pulls a bit of a red herring by putting income on the y-axis and percentage of population on the x-axis.

However, any probability-plot, which one would typically think of when plotting 'percentage of a population' on an axis, would do the exact opposite. This is also why a distributional curve wouldn't fit over it - because switching the axes screws with the calculus. The presentation shown is accurate, but not very comprehensive, and not standard. I know how to make graphs that tell one side of a story - I do it for a living. I don't see any other way to explain this to you, so if you still disagree, I've no problems with leaving it there.

We're not communicating on this very well, because you still sound very confused to me. We can agree on one thing, that graphs CAN be made to mislead - but this one doesn't.

We apparently both have some idea about the issue (I presume from your reference to what you do, I'm curious to hear more what you do that involved 'misleading with graphs'.

In illustrating that wealth is concentrated at the top, it makes sense to draw a horizontal line representing the population from least to most; and to have a y axis drawing the incomes, which just happens to show the skyrocketing line on the right, because that's the fact of how incomes are distributed.

How would YOU accurately illustrate the data which contains such a shocking concentration at the top, which accurately displays that, yet corrects your concern that's still unclear?

I guess you can just describe what your graph would look like - and how it's an improvement.

Yeah, sure. I'd just switch the axes and make the graph a pdf. A sliver of a tail trailing off the right side of a page is less dramatic than a humongous spike through the roof. It's a matter of perception. But, a pdf would give a better idea of the center of the distribution and its shape. The shape and the picture would tell us more about the middle classes and the lower class.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Yes, but the blame lies squarely on the shoulder of consumers. Rather than saving and investing and building their own wealth, most people borrow their way into massive debt so they can buy overpriced trinkets and toys from those wealthy individuals.

Don't forget stagnant income and increasing cost of living. 😀Your rants, you silly boy.:beer::laugh:

Cost of living has not increased. You could live very cheaply if you live a 1950s lifestyle. What has increased is the cost of luxuries.

You and your silly lack of comprehension.

In 1950, my $200,000 home would have been a Chicago area 10,000sq ft mansion with servants quarters. Now, its just a relatively modest 2000 sq ft in a very cheap part of the country.

Ever heard of inflation dumb ass??

In 1970 the average home size in America was 1400 sq ft.
In 2004 the average home size in Amerca was 2,330 sq ft.
So in 34 years we nearly doubled the size of the average American home.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: inspire
Yeah, sure. I'd just switch the axes and make the graph a pdf. A sliver of a tail trailing off the right side of a page is less dramatic than a humongous spike through the roof. It's a matter of perception. But, a pdf would give a better idea of the center of the distribution and its shape. The shape and the picture would tell us more about the middle classes and the lower class.

I still don't see what you are trying to do, what it would look like, what the improvement is.

You mention two changes; one is a pdf. I don't see what change that is at all - a pdf is a document type that has no effect on the appearance or design of the graph.

Switching the axes, well, not sure what you mean. Turn the graph 90 degrees and you have the same thing, don't you?

 

[nakedfrog]

Of course.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: inspire
Yeah, sure. I'd just switch the axes and make the graph a pdf. A sliver of a tail trailing off the right side of a page is less dramatic than a humongous spike through the roof. It's a matter of perception. But, a pdf would give a better idea of the center of the distribution and its shape. The shape and the picture would tell us more about the middle classes and the lower class.

I still don't see what you are trying to do, what it would look like, what the improvement is.

You mention two changes; one is a pdf. I don't see what change that is at all - a pdf is a document type that has no effect on the appearance or design of the graph.

Switching the axes, well, not sure what you mean. Turn the graph 90 degrees and you have the same thing, don't you?

Hah, I guess I should've caught that - this is a tech forum, after all - Probability Density Function (pdf). The neat thing about such a graph is the the total area under the curve is equal to 1 (like 100%). This lends itself naturally to plotting graphs where one axis is based on a percentage of a population (0% to 100%). Turning it on its side is kind of a way to imagine it, however rudimentary it may sound.

 

[ProfJohn]

Ok people!!!

The graph is wrong!!! It is dishonest and intentionally dishonest to make a political point.

The line on the far right represents an income of $50 billion!!! No one has ever made $50 billion in income during one year.

The guy took a supposed $50 billion increase in Bill Gates wealth and declared that to magically be income and produced his graph off that phantom income.

Why are we having a debate about the shape of a graph that is based on made up data?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Yes, but the blame lies squarely on the shoulder of consumers. Rather than saving and investing and building their own wealth, most people borrow their way into massive debt so they can buy overpriced trinkets and toys from those wealthy individuals.

:laugh:

So this is how the super-rich got it, eh? Certainly not through conniving manipulation and machinations.

No, the super rich get it by being connected to the crooks in government. But thanks for playing, noob.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Yes, but the blame lies squarely on the shoulder of consumers. Rather than saving and investing and building their own wealth, most people borrow their way into massive debt so they can buy overpriced trinkets and toys from those wealthy individuals.

But, but I DID save. And I lost my money in the S&L debacle. Then I saved again, and I lost my money during the current sub-prime crisis.

Hmm.... maybe you don't know shit about how to get wealthy?
Yep, that's it.

Never read Millionaire Next Door have you? Those are regular people who build wealth simply by not being stupid. No wonder you're not wealthy, you lack that one qualification.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Yes, but the blame lies squarely on the shoulder of consumers. Rather than saving and investing and building their own wealth, most people borrow their way into massive debt so they can buy overpriced trinkets and toys from those wealthy individuals.

Don't forget stagnant income and increasing cost of living. 😀Your rants, you silly boy.:beer::laugh:

Cost of living has not increased. You could live very cheaply if you live a 1950s lifestyle. What has increased is the cost of luxuries.

You and your silly lack of comprehension.

In 1950, my $200,000 home would have been a Chicago area 10,000sq ft mansion with servants quarters. Now, its just a relatively modest 2000 sq ft in a very cheap part of the country.

Precisely fool, average new home sizes have doubled since the 60s. If people lived in the same size houses we did back then they'd cost half as much as they do now.

 

[Martin]

I know facts and reality are like poison to conservatives, but for the brave few who can stomach it, have a look at this simple graph:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...d4/Gini_since_WWII.gif

Yes, there has been a pretty substantial shift of wealth distribution in the US over the last 30-40 years. If nothing is done, you'll be in "dysfunctional latino country" territory within a generation.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Martin
I know facts and reality are like poison to conservatives, but for the brave few who can stomach it, have a look at this simple graph:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...d4/Gini_since_WWII.gif

Yes, there has been a pretty substantial shift of wealth distribution in the US over the last 30-40 years. If nothing is done, you'll be in "dysfunctional latino country" territory within a generation.

I'll ask again since so many of you say things along the lines of 'if nothing is done'... what should be done???

 

[Wreckem]

Our consumer driven society and our over consumption has caused this disparity, NOT the people at the top.

In reality its the sheeple at the bottom willingly handing over their money to corporations so they can have the newest this(luxury item x) or newest that(luxury time y).

Americans over consume. The US is one of the only countries that has a populace that equates quality of living with material goods(often luxury goods).

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Martin
I know facts and reality are like poison to conservatives, but for the brave few who can stomach it, have a look at this simple graph:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...d4/Gini_since_WWII.gif

Yes, there has been a pretty substantial shift of wealth distribution in the US over the last 30-40 years. If nothing is done, you'll be in "dysfunctional latino country" territory within a generation.

Chart is meaningless.

example 1: We have 10lbs of corn to split between 10 people and one person takes 50% of the corn that leaves the other 9 people with about half a pound each.

example 2: We have 100lbs of corn to split between the same 10 people and one person takes 75% of the corn that leaves the other 9 people with 2.7lbs of corn each.

In this example the disparity in income has gone through the roof from example 1 to example 2, but the amount of corn to split between the people has risen so dramatically that everyone ends up with more corn.

That is roughly what is going on in our society. Yes the rich have a much greater percentage of wealth than they did 50 years ago, but the amount of wealth available is SO much great that nearly everyone has benefited along with the rich.

In the past 50 years every indicator of wealth that exists has gone UP. And every part of our society is MUCH richer than they were 50 years ago. Would you rather be a poor person in 1950 or today?

 

[smashp]

The American dream is Over. Everything around us is designed to burden the masses. The institutions enslave you while the upper echelon are on a Boat and, they're going Fast and, they're wearing nautical themed, pashema afghan's

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Wreckem
Our consumer driven society and our over consumption has caused this disparity, NOT the people at the top.

In reality its the sheeple at the bottom willingly handing over their money to corporations so they can have the newest this(luxury item x) or newest that(luxury time y).

Americans over consume. The US is one of the only countries that has a populace that equates quality of living with material goods(often luxury goods).

:thumbsup:

Americans happily fork over their earnings to the wealthiest individuals on a daily basis. They stopped shopping at the local store and started shopping at WalMart. Did they really expect the Walton family not to get obscenely wealthy?