How The Rich Are Winning

[Dekasa]

I didn't look into how exactly all those numbers are calculated, but if they are averages then that explains everything.

Yes. Average is skewed by... you guessed it! Massive wealth disparity.

 

[ProfJohn]

Per capita GDP and average wages is a much better guide to the economic health of a country because people who are on the extreme don't offset the balance as much.

Also the way that 'wealth' works tends to give the rich a huge misbalance when looking at figures like wealth distribution.

Also, the huge amount of debt carried by most Americans skews the distribution figures.

For example: my 'wealth' is near zero because the worth of my house and car are nearly the same as what I owe on them. And yet I am living in a 2800 sqft home and driving a $40,000 car and have three computers, a big screen tv etc etc.

Meanwhile a poor person living in a one bedroom apartment and making minimum wage and barely paying their bills has the same amount of 'wealth' as I do.

As I said in my first post on this topic: wealth distribution is a lousy figure because of the way it works and the way it is skewed toward the 'rich.'

Look at Warren Buffet who is worth $47 billion and lives in a town of 454,000. The other 454,000 people of Omaha would have to have an average worth of $10,000 each in order to equal the wealth of Buffet. And if that were in fact the case then Buffet would still own 50% of the entire wealth of Omaha.

 

[jackace]

Per capita GDP and average wages is a much better guide to the economic health of a country because people who are on the extreme don't offset the balance as much.

Also the way that 'wealth' works tends to give the rich a huge misbalance when looking at figures like wealth distribution.

Also, the huge amount of debt carried by most Americans skews the distribution figures.

For example: my 'wealth' is near zero because the worth of my house and car are nearly the same as what I owe on them. And yet I am living in a 2800 sqft home and driving a $40,000 car and have three computers, a big screen tv etc etc.

Meanwhile a poor person living in a one bedroom apartment and making minimum wage and barely paying their bills has the same amount of 'wealth' as I do.

As I said in my first post on this topic: wealth distribution is a lousy figure because of the way it works and the way it is skewed toward the 'rich.'

Look at Warren Buffet who is worth $47 billion and lives in a town of 454,000. The other 454,000 people of Omaha would have to have an average worth of $10,000 each in order to equal the wealth of Buffet. And if that were in fact the case then Buffet would still own 50% of the entire wealth of Omaha.

Again the video I re-posted a few posts back shows that your interpretation is not the reality.

 

[sandorski]

Yes really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
Per capita GDP (PPP)

6. US $46,381
10 Australia $38,911

So our per capita GDP is 20% higher than the next country on that list.

How about average full time wage (PPP)??
The US ranks second in the world at $49,486 (2007 figure)
The next country on that list is Norway at $40,177
Again we are talking about a 20% difference. That is HUGE. Think about how long it will take the typical person to increase their income by 20%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wages

Sure there is an income distribution problem in this country and the 'rich' own too much of the country, but let's not forget the fact that the amount of wealth in this country is staggering compared other countries around the world.

This would be a more accurate way of measuring Income

It only accounts for Wages/Salaries Paid across the amount of people Employed - Income Taxes, SS, UI/EI(basically Deductions from Pay Cheques). The US is still ahead, but much less so and this does not account for Healthcare Costs or other Public Benefits(in many EU Nations) where they exist.

 

[ProfJohn]

Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income

Median household income
US = $52,000
Australia = $44,115

We are still kicking ass.

As for trying to factor in healthcare... good luck because there are huge other things that factor into healthcare costs. Sure our personal healthcare costs are high in the US, but our overall tax rate is lower.

ie. the guy in Norway may get free healthcare, but 50% of his income goes to the government. Meanwhile the typical American spends a few thousand per year on healthcare, but only pays 25% of their income goes to taxes. When you start to factor in things like taxes then 'free' healthcare becomes not so free.

 

[ProfJohn]

Average does not equal median.

Health Care is one of the largest expenses for households, [bold]but other countries you compare the US to have "free" universal healthcare. [/bold] Are you properly adjusting for that?

There is no such thing as 'free' healthcare.

Americans pay for healthcare out of their own pockets directly, other countries pay for their healthcare indirectly via taxes.

Proclaiming that some countries have 'free healthcare' is the same as me claiming that the roads I drive on are 'free' since I am not actually paying to drive on them, right?

 

[HendrixFan]

That's all fine and dandy ProfJohn, but I think the problem wasn't average "wealth" but average "income".

I put "free" in quotations for that very reason. I understand that. The US, by far, spends more money per capita on healthcare. The rising cost of healthcare is a big reason why middle class families are not as well off as they were a generation ago. From your own link, there is only one country in this list (top 15) that doesn't have universal healthcare. Guess who it is:

1 Luxembourg 49,663
2 United States 49,486
3 Ireland 44,013
4 Switzerland 42,980
5 Netherlands 42,514
6 Canada 42,019
7 United Kingdom 40,825
8 Belgium 40,591
9 Norway 40,177
10 Denmark 39,143
11 Austria 38,682
12 Australia 38,245
13 France 35,430
14 Germany 35,292
15 Sweden 33,586

 

[jackace]

Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income

Median household income
US = $52,000
Australia = $44,115

We are still kicking ass.

As for trying to factor in healthcare... good luck because there are huge other things that factor into healthcare costs. Sure our personal healthcare costs are high in the US, but our overall tax rate is lower.

ie. the guy in Norway may get free healthcare, but 50% of his income goes to the government. Meanwhile the typical American spends a few thousand per year on healthcare, but only pays 25% of their income goes to taxes. When you start to factor in things like taxes then 'free' healthcare becomes not so free.

I know the video is long, but it has been around for a few years and posted on this forum more than once. You keep avoiding the years of research that lady did which show actual reality and what is happening to the middle class families in this country.

 

[sandorski]

There is no such thing as 'free' healthcare.

Americans pay for healthcare out of their own pockets directly, other countries pay for their healthcare indirectly via taxes.

Proclaiming that some countries have 'free healthcare' is the same as me claiming that the roads I drive on are 'free' since I am not actually paying to drive on them, right?

Yes, he Knows, I Know, everyone Knows. Likely why he put Quotes around it. His point still stands. Given the Data I linked above, the Average American Worker quickly drops from 1st for even minor Medical Care(Pregnancy, broken bone requiring cast, etc), if they don 't have Insurance. If they're Paying for Insurance they have definitely fallen off the Top.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Does the US have more wealthy people compared to other countries? What is the definition of "poor" versus those other countries?

I'm asking because I think there are some arbitrary measurements being made in a stretch to try to make a point here.

 

[jackace]

Does the US have more wealthy people compared to other countries? What is the definition of "poor" versus those other countries?

I'm asking because I think there are some arbitrary measurements being made in a stretch to try to make a point here.

Did you read the article I originally posted?

They defined rich as people with $1 million+ in net worth and ultra-rich as those with $30 million+ in net worth. They also said that 100,000 people are classified as ultra-rich and 1/3rd of them are in the US.

They defined middle class with an average family income of $55,000 a year.

The article wasn't talking about poor people so it didn't define it, but it is most often defined as those who make below the cost of living for their respective country/area.

 

[BoberFett]

This wouldn't happen if the one's claiming to be exclusively Free Market, were not always whining/complaining/wanting abolished every single Law/Regulation on the books regarding Economic activity. The Moderate just take them at their word and show the examples of their advocacy.

RAAAAAWWWWWRRRRRRR! STRAWMAN ATTACK!!!!!!!!

Winter is early in Canuckistan eh? Brain freezing up already?

 

[BoberFett]

Fraud is part of a free market. Only when outside forces intervene can fraud be diminished or repelled to some extent.

What do you think government is for? How many times must it be said? Libertarians are for small government, not anarchy. Fraud must be dealt with harshly in order for a free market to work. Obviously libertarians differ on what exactly constitutes small government just as every other person of every philosophy has different ideas about governments exact role. But enough with the silly line about how libertarians and free market supporters want to own slaves and poison children for fun. It just makes you look foolish.

 

[Zebo]

Libertarianism fuck themselves when they fail to realize wealth accumulation promotes power and power corrupts. Generally I agree with it as a theory, especially so on civil libertarian side - but once shit needs to get done by .gov that's where it all starts. Simple as who builds this road, oh guy who gave me $100,000 to run. Lay it out with a ruler from there.

 

[BoberFett]

Libertarianism fuck themselves when they fail to realize wealth accumulation promotes power and power corrupts. Generally I agree with it as a theory, especially so on civil libertarian side - but once shit needs to get done by .gov that's where it all starts. Simple as who builds this road, oh guy who gave me $100,000 to run. Lay it out with a ruler from there.

Yeah, and big government supporters fuck themselves the same way. They're just owned by different masters.

Power and wealth gives some people power and wealth. I'm shocked.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

That aint no problem for Bush. He ran multiple businesses in the ground and the thick loans kept on commin' what's some medical bills?

BTW good post.

Good point. By the measure of some of the guys in this thread, GWB is "successful." Was hard work largely responsible for getting him that "success"? Uh, no. His family's money and connections propped him up through failure after failure. He had the luck of being born into a wealthy family. If Bush had been born into Joe Plumber's family, he'd be a middle class chump like the rest of us.

 

[flexy]

There is no such thing as 'free' healthcare.

No, there's not.

But there is tax money spent which directly benefits each tax payer.
As opposed to tax money spent where you don't even know where it goes to, respective tax money spent for stuff no one "wants".

Of course, you might call me fricking communist socialist, but i would prefer spending tax money and know i get health insurance and return - as opposed to financing a silly search for non existent WMDs or blowing $200.000 on one single cruise missile.

...but 50% of his income goes to the government. Meanwhile the typical American spends a few thousand per year on healthcare, but only pays 25% of their income goes to taxes. When you start to factor in things like taxes then 'free' healthcare becomes not so free.

its funny that you use something as example which is been CRITIZED for ages already. How long do you guys already root for "healthcare reform"? Now tell me with a straight face that your health care is all shiny and dandy....

 

[Atreus21]

Nevermind.

 

[child of wonder]

Assuming you are right, exactly how do you propose to make "luck" equal?

I don't.

Life isn't fair.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

yes, wealth/success is determined by talent, hard work, smarts, luck or a combination of these. not everyone is created equal and not everyone will have equal opportunity.

the fact that you can name one person born into poverty that can rise to the top is a testament that the system works. no one is unfairly holding anyone down.

life is not fair and never will be. deal with it and stop being jealous asshats.
i don't get what you guys are expecting. drag the guys at the top down so that there's less unfair advantage?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

There's no inequality. Everyone has the same opportunity here to become as rich as they want or make choices in life to be as poor as they want.

So you're saying that someone born into poverty in the inner city has the same opportunity to become rich as someone who was born into a wealthy family and who was sent to prep school?

You're saying that someone who doesn't have family connections in businesses that can hire them has the same opportunity to become rich as someone who was born into a family with business connections?

What you're saying is absolutely ludicrous. I just had to point it out.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

That's what make America so great. If you want to become rich and successful you can do it here thanks to our free market economy. All it takes is hard work and some ingenuity.

The problem is that many people want to work hard but they cannot find career-building jobs, just dead-end poverty-wage jobs. You could argue that people should go start their own businesses, but doing that successfully requires capital.

It's definitely not as easy as you make it out to be. It is not merely a matter of hard work and I think it takes a whole lot more than "some ingenuity" to pull it off.

 

[BoberFett]

So you're saying that someone born into poverty in the inner city has the same opportunity to become rich as someone who was born into a wealthy family and who was sent to prep school?

You're saying that someone who doesn't have family connections in businesses that can hire them has the same opportunity to become rich as someone who was born into a family with business connections?

What you're saying is absolutely ludicrous. I just had to point it out.

Why do people who claim there's no class mobility in this country focus so much on getting wealthy? Why does someone have to move from poverty to riches to be considered successful? Isn't it enough to go from poor to middle class? Maybe if more people concentrated on that rather than hoping and praying that they get immediately blasted into the ranks of the rich and famous, we'd have more success in this country overall?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

You can always tell who is successful. You can tell by the attitude. This is the correct attitude to success.

The incorrect one is - it's somebody else's fault, this person makes too much, we should cap salaries, those evil rich are bad people, you have to be lucky and I'm not lucky, etc. That is the attitude of mediocrity and object failure.

Is it possible that if you are successful you just tend to end up having that belief because it reinforces your ego whereas if you were hard-working but unsuccessful you would question the Meritocracy dogma?

If it were all a matter of attitude and having a sense of personal responsibility--if merely having a positive attitude created jobs and economic opportunity--then we wouldn't have any problems in this country. See:

Smile or Die Youtube video

 

[woolfe9999]

There is no such thing as 'free' healthcare.

Americans pay for healthcare out of their own pockets directly, other countries pay for their healthcare indirectly via taxes.

Proclaiming that some countries have 'free healthcare' is the same as me claiming that the roads I drive on are 'free' since I am not actually paying to drive on them, right?

No, actually most of it is paid for out of your pay check, just as if you were taxed by the government to pay for government healthcare. In the typical case, your employer "pays for it." In reality, you receive the insurance in lieu of higher wages. The few thousand a year you pay directly is basically your co-pays and deductibles.

You're right that healthcare is never "free." It's a question of which system has the more *expensive* healthcare, and the more expensive health insurance. That is the US, on both counts.

- wolf