US: Gap between rich and poor widest on record.

[Pocatello]

Asians have cultural man on the street protection too. They are not stupid like Americans are and will not put food on American tables if at all possible. Germans make real world class cars, but I did not see one in Japan. Did not see one in China.

My cousins really dig their BMWs and Mercedes too, very fine cars, and their mechanics love them for being regular customers.

 

[SP33Demon]

The world is headed towards the Chinese model. Privileged Owners get 99% of proceeds while workers only get 1% of their labor. Police states. Less freedoms et al.

Just because China does it doesn't mean we cannot be successful, it will just take us longer.

In response, the PRC has undertaken its own 'Buy American' campaign - acquiring American and other consumer product companies (Lenovo, Volvo, portions of the Blackstone Group and Morgan Stanley) and starting its own (egl Geely automobiles), using political and economic leverage to acquire American (and others') technological capabilities in tomorrow's industries, acquiring access to raw materials around the world, recruiting skilled science and math expatriates to return, increasing its own R&D capabilities and expenditures, and boosting education expenditures - especially at the university level.

I think this is the key: boosting education expenditures at the university level and transitioning our workforce into the service industry mentality. The proof is in the pudding, IT fields such as networking are going to increase by 1/3 in the next 20 years and our economy will be built on technology even more so. More technology = cheaper goods which should eventually eliminate our need to outsource to China (full automation). Imagine a world where tech support is smart enough to out-think a human but sound exactly like one where you cannot tell the difference. Imagine factories of robots where only managers are needed to keep it running. This is the wave of the manufacturing and service industry but we will never catch up until we can ensure our citizens a very cheap university education that provides incentives and jobs for science/math majors. Fix education and fix our economy.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
While the economy is certainly not a zero-sum game, tariffs actually are. For every job saved by a tariff, another job is lost due to the increased prices people have to pay for goods and services, or jobs lost by companies that relocate or go out of business.

Sounds like you're describing tariffs paid on domestically produced goods? That, or businesses that are importers/resellers of foreign goods subject to tariffs.

Fern

 

[Pocatello]

"You're missing the minor itty bitty point that Hyundai and Samsung compete for business, with, well you know, the entire freaking world."

That's the whole point I'm trying to say. Even with government protection, Hyundai still has to compete to become successful overseas. But if without the government help in the first place, Hyundai couldn't compete in its own turf. You're saying with government protection, the people suffer, product quality suffers, companies become stagnate, no new jobs will be created. I'm saying those Asian companies have grown successfully because of the help from their government, but they still have to compete with companies within the country and those of overseas.

 

[1prophet]

That's the biggest lie of them all.

If you say so.

 

[shira]

Another day on ATOT. Childish insults.

Freedom is American. Capitalism is freedom. Wealth is built by capitalism. If you're anti-wealth, you're anti-American.

I can use logic. Now you try instead of posting like an typical P&Ner.

Come on, let hear it. How is advocating what the United States was intended for (a nation of free individuals), "Anti-American." Or do you mean this 1960s working man image of America that left wingers have? That's not America.

In another fifty years under the right-wing vision of America, 1% of the population will have 99.9% of the wealth, and everyone else will have nothing. But that's your idea of "freedom," right?

 

[shira]

How does one persons success prevent you from being successful?

A system that stacks the deck in favor of the few prevents the success of the many.

 

[LunarRay]

IF you know what is happening to you and you do nothing about it it must mean you don't care or can't do anything about it... IF you can't do anything about it then you ought not to care... Seems a waste of energy to me...
We live in a land of Dukes and Earls and Barons and the Knights in shining armor work for them... we are the flies that their horses swat with a tail all manicured and braided..
Live long and enable them to prosper... or not but in either case the dye is cast... we are what we are and pretty apt to stay that way.... We support the Right or Left cuz we like them but they ain't us... either side ain't us... They are them..!!

 

[Craig234]

How does one persons success prevent you from being successful?

That's a uselessly vague question. It all depends what he does.

And of course it's not about "one person", it's a macro issue.

This is a big issue the right is utterly ignorant about, the problem with concentration of wealth and how it prevents opportunity and reduces wealth of others.

 

[GaiaHunter]

This is a big issue the right is utterly ignorant about, the problem with concentration of wealth and how it prevents opportunity and reduces wealth of others.

Couple of questions.

What will the de-concentration of wealth achieve?

For example the $56bn (ignoring the fact that a large portion is in assets and not paper money that would have to be sold to someone) of Bill Gates equally split by the 310 million US citizens would be worth each one $180.

And of course the purchasing power of a million US dollars in 1959 is equivalent to 7.3 million dollars in 2009 (and increasing) - so much of the wealth increase of millionaires is due to inflation raising assets prices.

In 2009 the number of millionaires in US was 2,886,200 (and lets not forget many qualify due to house value) which is less than 1% of the population. The money of a guy worth $1M split by the entire US population would give each US citizen $0.0032.



Who will overview the de-concentration?

US government?

But isn't the US government an ever increasing concentration of wealth that has failed to close the gap between poor and rich, despite collecting more and more taxes and borrowing more and more money?

Isn't it a fact that the US government/Fed increase the wealth of millionaires by printing more money/issuing debt, in a word creating inflation (or if you prefer the "modern definition that favour governments" monetary inflation) which raise their assets value, while decrease people that have to work for a living wealth, since they need to spend more of their income in basic necessities?

 

[JMapleton]

In another fifty years under the right-wing vision of America, 1% of the population will have 99.9% of the wealth, and everyone else will have nothing. But that's your idea of "freedom," right?

If that's because of the choices made by the middle class to not save and invest, then yes.

 

[Craig234]

If that's because of the choices made by the middle class to not save and invest, then yes.

One of our worst right-wing ideologues. No idea of the economic factors affecting opportunity. It's all workers' fault if we become a plutocracy (lootocracy to coin a word).

 

[ProfJohn]

I wonder how far back their records go, as I find it dificult to believe that the income disparity is greater now than in the era of the robber barons. At least I hope not-for if it is greater, then the American Dream is dead for all intents and purposes. The USA will become just a larger version of a South American oligopoly.

Actually when you think about...


During the age of the robber barons there were a few extremely rich people and tons of poor people. So when you graphed it out the rich may have had a large portion of the wealth, the fact that there were so few of them compared to the rest of society their combined wealth didn't over shadow the 'masses'

Today though we have a LOT more rich and a lot more marginally rich people. The Forbes 500 might be the modern equivalent of the robber barons when it comes to wealth, but after them we have thousands and thousands of additional rich people. And when you combine the wealth of the extremely rich with the thousands of barely rich you end up with a HUGE amount of money.

In 2008 over 300,000 people had an AGI of over a million dollars.

BTW these charts aren't entirely honest because they don't filter out students and people who work part time due their own choice. If you eliminated students and part time workers and just went with family earners you would probably see a big tightening on the graph.

 

[Jhhnn]

If that's because of the choices made by the middle class to not save and invest, then yes.

Who do you think got ripped off in the Housing and MBS markets? The middle class, that's who. Pensions and 401k's got hammered so that hedge funds and banksters could get their bonuses. Families who purchased homes during the boom are left underwater for what will likely be a decade or more.

What do you think private equity buyouts are all about, other than union busting, asset stripping and debt loading the companies they buy?

The financial elite has become predatory rather than contributory to the well being of this country, and the sooner we recognize that and take measures to correct it, the sooner we'll have a healthy economy.

The simple fact that the top .1% has roughly the same share of taxable national income as the bottom 50% combined should confirm that, particularly when the truth is that they're pulling away rapidly. Project the changes in income distribution over the last 30 years another 30 years into the future, tell me there's something there other than the third world way of doing things, and that it's good for America.

 

[JMapleton]

One of our worst right-wing ideologues. No idea of the economic factors affecting opportunity. It's all workers' fault if we become a plutocracy (lootocracy to coin a word).

Where are the clothes on your back made? In China I bet. That's because of the choice of the American people to buy cheap clothes instead of American made ones.

We've become a "bought at Walmart" world. No one buys anything nice anymore. They buy what's cheap and disposable. They buy the biggest house as possible and fill it will as much stuff, but not affording to buy quality things.

I have American made socks, shoes, and jeans on right now. I paid more for them, but they're quality and I look great in them and they last long. But no one will spend $200 on jeans, $150 on shoes, and $10 on socks. Fine, send your money to China.

 

[Craig234]

Couple of questions.

What will the de-concentration of wealth achieve?

Going from high to better concentration of wealth will increase opportunity, productivity, make more people better off is society, increase freedom and democracy.

The right seems to never discuss if their policies go too far, but yes there's a limit, if wealth is deconcentrated TOO much, you lose productivity.

For example the $56bn (ignoring the fact that a large portion is in assets and not paper money that would have to be sold to someone) of Bill Gates equally split by the 310 million US citizens would be worth each one $180.

You don't learn about class issues by looking at one person.

Learn the info on this site and then get back to me:

http://www.lcurve.org/

And of course the purchasing power of a million US dollars in 1959 is equivalent to 7.3 million dollars in 2009 (and increasing) - so much of the wealth increase of millionaires is due to inflation raising assets prices.

Yes, we're talking about wealth *after inflation*.

There's a saying JFK liked to quote, 'a rising tide lifts all boats', to describe how when the US economy grew, the poor middle and rich all were better off.

For the first time in history, since Reagan, the bottom 80% have gotten about *ZERO* of all the growth in the economy - which has been a lot of money - after inflation.

A rising tide lifts all yachts is the current version.

And it's not equal among the top 20% - the bottom 80% of the top 20% went up a bit moderately, the top 1% more, the top 0.1% more, and the top 0.01% hundreds of %.

Who will overview the de-concentration?

US government?

You sound confused, what are you talking about overview it? You don't have people sitting on skyscrapers watching it.

Who overviewed it when it was done in the 30's and 40's? Same people, I guess.

But isn't the US government an ever increasing concentration of wealth that has failed to close the gap between poor and rich, despite collecting more and more taxes and borrowing more and more money?

You sound confused again. Wealth is not concentrated 'in the government'. It's concentrated in private hands.

Part of the issue is tax policy, part of it is spending policy, part of it is regulatory policy, part of it is monetary policy...

I'd explain further, but if you think wealth is concentrated in the government...

Government does affect poverty and wealth rates in the US. When there was a 'war on poverty', the longtime poverty rate in the US was reduced by a third ever since.

Isn't it a fact that the US government/Fed increase the wealth of millionaires by printing more money/issuing debt, in a word creating inflation (or if you prefer the "modern definition that favour governments" monetary inflation) which raise their assets value, while decrease people that have to work for a living wealth, since they need to spend more of their income in basic necessities?

No, but they increase or decrease the wealth of various groups with various policies.

Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse; sometimes motivated for the public benefit, sometimes motivated for the rich, and so on.

You sound like you're pushing some anti-government propaganda you picked up, and missing the point of democracy and wealth issues.

You think the rich will have a smaller share without democracy and weak government?

 

[GaiaHunter]

You think the rich will have a smaller share without democracy and weak government?

Leaving all the other silly stuff alone, like believing inflation equals wealth creation or production, how the hell do you explain the increase in disparity since the Government is much BIGGER AND STRONGER NOW than it was 30 years ago, 100 years ago?

The fact is the US isn't richer now than it was 20-30 years ago, regardless of what GDP number says and that is because GDP isn't really meaningful (like a hurricane hits a place destroy infrastructure, but since we are spending to rebuild that makes GDP go up, when it is obvious we are poorer since we have to replace stuff we already owned) and 70% of US GDP is consumption anyway.

Generally GDP measures expenditure - so it seems logical that if you spend more it is because you are richer, right? But what if all that expenditure is done with borrowed money?

 

[Craig234]

Leaving all the other silly stuff alone, like believing inflation equals wealth creation or production

Don't imply I said that.

how the hell do you explain the increase in disparity since the Government is much BIGGER AND STRONGER NOW than it was 30 years ago, 100 years ago?

Are you serious?

The 'size of government' isn't a simple up and down measure that correlates to wealth issues. The government can do good or bad. It can affect wealth with regulation alone.

The fact is the US isn't richer now than it was 20-30 years ago, regardless of what GDP number says and that is because GDP isn't really meaningful (like a hurricane hits a place destroy infrastructure, but since we are spending to rebuild that makes GDP go up, when it is obvious we are poorer since we have to replace stuff we already owned) and 70% of US GDP is consumption anyway.

Generally GDP measures expenditure - so it seems logical that if you spend more it is because you are richer, right? But what if all that expenditure is done with borrowed money?

We've had changes that have shifted all the taking of the economy's growth to the top, from tax shifts for the top to finance de-regulation to anti-labor policies and more.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Are you serious?

The 'size of government' isn't a simple up and down measure that correlates to wealth issues. The government can do good or bad. It can affect wealth with regulation alone.

From where I'm sitting the bigger it is the worse it seems to get.

We've had changes that have shifted all the taking of the economy's growth to the top, from tax shifts for the top to finance de-regulation to anti-labor policies and more.

In 2007, the top 5% of income earners paid over half of the federal income tax revenue while holding 59% of the wealth. The top 1% paid 25% of all federal income tax revenue while holding 23.5% of the wealth.

We have never been as regulated and workers never had so much protection.

 

[Jhhnn]

From where I'm sitting the bigger it is the worse it seems to get.




In 2007, the top 5% of income earners paid over half of the federal income tax revenue while holding 59% of the wealth. The top 1% paid 25% of all federal income tax revenue while holding 23.5% of the wealth.

We have never been as regulated and workers never had so much protection.

Your numbers are inaccurate, I suspect. Try these-

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Here are some dramatic facts that sum up how the wealth distribution became even more concentrated between 1983 and 2004, in good part due to the tax cuts for the wealthy and the defeat of labor unions: Of all the new financial wealth created by the American economy in that 21-year-period, fully 42% of it went to the top 1%. A whopping 94% went to the top 20%, which of course means that the bottom 80% received only 6% of all the new financial wealth generated in the United States during the '80s, '90s, and early 2000s (Wolff, 2007).

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Distribution of wealth has tilted even further to the top since the Real Estate Bust, cutting the share held by the lower 80% substantially. The GINI coefficient continues to reflect growing inequality.

Workers have never enjoyed greater protection? Hardly. Workers' positions are more precarious than ever with the substitution of 401K's for pensions and the constant churn in business entities, not to mention the near total demise of unions and the reality of having to compete with much lower priced foreign labor. Protected from what, exactly?

None of this even begins to account for offshoring of investment, either. What we're looking at is the American pie, not he world pie, of which American capitalists obviously own more than they did in 1980. Our biggest problems are connected strongly to the lack of capital investment in productive means in this country.

 

[GaiaHunter]

From the taxfoundation you linked

In 2007, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 40.4 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 22.8 percent of adjusted gross income. Both of those figures—share of income and share of taxes paid—are significantly higher than they were in 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes.
(...)
For the first time this year, we are also presenting data on the top 0.1% of tax returns (the top 10 percent of the top 1 percent). This 10 percent of the returns in the top 1 percent amounts to only 141,000 tax returns but accounts for nearly 12 percent of the adjusted gross income earned and approximately 20 percent of the nation's federal individual income taxes. The average income for a tax return in this top 0.1 percent is $7.4 million, while the average amount of income tax paid is $1.6 million, indicating an average effective individual income tax rate of 21.5 percent. This very top income group actually has a lower average effective tax rate than the rest of the top 1 percent of returns because these extremely high-income returns are more likely to have income from capital gains and dividends, which are typically taxed at lower rates. (Note that in the case of capital gains and dividends, in most cases the income has already been taxed once by the corporate income tax, which is not included here.)

(...)

The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $66,532) earned 68.7 percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86.6 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $410,096) earned approximately 22.8 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 40.4 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid more in federal individual income taxes than the bottom 95 percent of tax returns.

None of this even begins to account for offshoring of investment, either. What we're looking at is the American pie, not he world pie, of which American capitalists obviously own more than they did in 1980. Our biggest problems are connected strongly to the lack of capital investment in productive means in this country.

And how are you going to force them to invest it in the US? More regulation, taxation, higher job cost, etc?

 

[Craig234]

From where I'm sitting the bigger it is the worse it seems to get.

You seem to have an understanding only of recent history where the rich agenda has been served; bigger programs with FDR, JFK, LBJ usually did a lot of good for the public.

But even recently, some 'big' programs have helped. Stimulus helped, but wasn't enough. The GM program worked nicely.

Even TARP can be argued to have helped, with the problem not being TARP - and the Democrats have taken measures to prevent another bailout - but with the finance industry getting the government to let things deteriorate to where 'too big' was permitted to let them blackmail the economy - which has not yet been fixed.

That's an issue not of too much government, but of not enough power for the public agenda to be followed instead of Wall Street's agenda.

In 2007, the top 5% of income earners paid over half of the federal income tax revenue while holding 59% of the wealth. The top 1% paid 25% of all federal income tax revenue while holding 23.5% of the wealth.

That's a misleading and narrow statistic. Their income and wealth has gone up a lot more than their taxes during this period.

Give a billionare a lot more of the percent of economic growth, sure he'll be happy to pay a bit of that in taxes. Your statistic is actually the problem if you understood the income.

And also note, who are the huge deficits serving, when the rich paying so much of the tax burden you are concerned about, leave huge deficits they aren't paying to the public debt?

We have never been as regulated and workers never had so much protection.

You're wrong.

First, as I explained, much of the issue has nothing to do with 'regulation'. Things like tax policy are helping the rich.

Second, regulation isn't just measured by the number, but by the content. One sentence or paragraph being changed that lets the finance industry do harmful things that profit them is the issue more than a big regulation bill about something. There has been a lot of DEREGULATION, some of which is actually defensible, and some bad. Finance deregulation has caused problems. Finance underregulation has caused problems.

For just one example, do you know what credit default swaps are? The government did what it's supposed to by regulating 'insurance' products in the finance industry. But the regulations prevented some people from doing things that would make them money - by limiting risk. So something almost no one heard of before the crash was created called 'credit default swaps' which seem to have been nothing more than a pretty much completely unregulated instrument to be used instead of regulated insurance, without the rules, which let companies provide weaker 'insurance' for risky products, which all went great - if the insurance did not need to get paid. Which created a lot of risk.

The government during this time was led by the 'don't regulate the market' type people.

The problem here was not enough regulation, not too much.

Some regulations are in place - and serving the public. There aren't a lot of airplane crashes, are there? Funny enough, the less regulated commuter airlines are less safe.

But they're cheaper to operate, which is why there have been so many 'big' airlines who try to get the best of both worlds putting their name on cheaper commuter 'partners'.

Workers too do have a lot of protective regulation today, and you don't see a lot of workplace problems, do you? Not a lot of women pressured to sleep with the boss or else?

There are still a lot of problems - millions of illegals can be exploited; Bush put in charge of enforcing the worker protections the son of Supreme Court radical Antony Scalia, who was an attorney who had worked for the other side, corporations against workers on lawsuits, the fox guarding the henhouse. Care to hear what happened with enforcement?

 

[Craig234]

From the taxfoundation you linked
And how are you going to force them to invest it in the US? More regulation, taxation, higher job cost, etc?

You come across as a propagandist, not a person discussing issues, when Jhhnn gives you a lot of info like 94% of all economic growth going to the top 20% and you ignore it.

You don't seem to care to discuss the issues, just to post 'talking points'.

That level of problem with the wealth distribution, and you say 'no problem, let's make it worse'.

There are incentives that help with the 'off-shoring of wealth', there are efforts that could be made on agreements between nations so the rich can't force them into a race to the bottom. Some benefits to participating in the American economy and extracting its wealth can be reduced for those who are more exploitave about offshoring.

Do you have any interest in learning about that - if so, read David Cay Johnston from my sig - or are you just going to post another libertarian 'big government bad' post?

 

[GaiaHunter]

You come across as a propagandist, not a person discussing issues, when Jhhnn gives you a lot of info like 94% of all economic growth going to the top 20% and you ignore it.

And your solutions is? Tax the top 20% 94% more?

I've pointed to the fact that those that earn more already pay more.

Around 40% of the population pays no taxes.

I don't care if the top 1% has 99% of the wealth.

I care that the 1% of the wealth that remains is enough for the 99% of the population has a place to live, clothing, health, security, is able to pay for their kids studies (allowing them to aspire to be in the top 1% or whatever percentile you prefer) and is able to have some luxuries/leisure time.

You guys are just "Rich is evil! They take all the wealth!".

Who the fuck cares with that as long the wealth that is left over allows a happy life with all the stuff I pointed earlier?

What you should care about is the debasement of currency that is happening that makes everybody wages worth less.

Do I hear you talk about that? Nope.

Do I hear you talk about how the new regulations, that are supposed to be anti big corporations, strangle the smaller business?

Do I hear you talk how the government keeps redirecting money from profitable business into business that aren't profitable like GM?

Governments don't create wealth - they syphon it from one place and put it on another place.

That is why the $700bn stimulus package didn't work and wont work regardless.

All of this social classes fight is a big distraction of the real problems.

Unfortunately we will see the result in a few years, when we get to pay back all this money

 

[Craig234]

And GaiaHunter still does not respond to most of Jhhnn's post, or any of post 97, among others, and as I described just keeps posting more libertarian talking points.