Washington State going back to a modified lockdown

[Fenixgoon]

Sorry, but your argument falls flat on its face when you bring up "piece of the pie". As if wealth was static.

Finally something you're actually right on. Just not for the reasons you think. Wealth isn't static, as the graph indicates. Accumulated wealth has been increasingly favoring the already wealthy for the last 2 decades.

 

[blackangst1]

Finally something you're actually right on. Just not for the reasons you think. Wealth isn't static, as the graph indicates. Accumulated wealth has been increasingly favoring the already wealthy for the last 2 decades.

As it should! He who saves or invests the most should HAVE the most.

And here's another thing. If some person living in the bronx who lives in the projects has a talent for fixing shoes, he is free to start his own business and be a cobbler. And guess what? Neither the riches of Bill Gates, the Koch bros, or George Soros can prevent that! If I wanted to start that cobbler business, which rich people would prevent me from doing so?

The rich didnt prevent YouTube, Google, Ben and Jerrys, or The Body Shop from growing into giants. They just created MORE wealth. Thats why when the words "piece of the pie" come up, the rest of the argument falls flat. There is no static pie to get a piece of.

 

[Paratus]

Sorry, but your argument falls flat on its face when you bring up "piece of the pie". As if wealth was static.

It absolutely isn’t. But as long as the percent taken by the by sub 1% increases faster than pie increases they will continue to outpace the rest of us.

The closer you are to the 0.001% the faster your potion increases.

“The share of total wealth of the top 0.1 percent has roughly tripled, and the share of the 0.01 percent has more than quintupled. The top 0.01 percent of US households had at least $111 million in net worth in 2012, compared to $4 million for the 1 percent.”

What’s even more interesting is the median wealth in the US is 99.9% less than the wealth of the 0.01% while the 0.01% have 99.9% less wealth than Jeff Bezos.

(The bottom quintile has about 99.9% less wealth than the median)

 

[Fenixgoon]

As it should! He who saves or invests the most should HAVE the most.

And here's another thing. If some person living in the bronx who lives in the projects has a talent for fixing shoes, he is free to start his own business and be a cobbler. And guess what? Neither the riches of Bill Gates, the Koch bros, or George Soros can prevent that! If I wanted to start that cobbler business, which rich people would prevent me from doing so?

The rich didnt prevent YouTube, Google, Ben and Jerrys, or The Body Shop from growing into giants. They just created MORE wealth. Thats why when the words "piece of the pie" come up, the rest of the argument falls flat. There is no static pie to get a piece of.

A) the rich didn't create that wealth on their own. They have a long list of people (their employees) to thank for getting them where they are.


Sure the pie grows, but if things were distributed at a constant level, the proportioning of the pie wouldn't change. 20% of 1x pie is lower than 20% of 2x pie, but you're still at 20% of the total pie in either scenario (because percentages normalize things relative to some reference value, e.g. the current amount of available pie).

The fact that the pie has grown, and the rich also have a larger share of that larger pie, absolutely means things are disproportionate, and increasingly disproportionate.

 

[Paratus]

As it should! He who saves or invests the most should HAVE the most.

And here's another thing. If some person living in the bronx who lives in the projects has a talent for fixing shoes, he is free to start his own business and be a cobbler. And guess what? Neither the riches of Bill Gates, the Koch bros, or George Soros can prevent that! If I wanted to start that cobbler business, which rich people would prevent me from doing so?

The rich didnt prevent YouTube, Google, Ben and Jerrys, or The Body Shop from growing into giants. They just created MORE wealth. Thats why when the words "piece of the pie" come up, the rest of the argument falls flat. There is no static pie to get a piece of.

Wow this is very naive. A complete lack of understanding where wealth comes from and no understanding of how large businesses can and have absolutely crushed small businesses, reduced competition to control wages.

 

[blackangst1]

It absolutely isn’t. But as long as the percent taken by the by sub 1% increases faster than pie increases they will continue to outpace the rest of us.

The closer you are to the 0.001% the faster your potion increases.

“The share of total wealth of the top 0.1 percent has roughly tripled, and the share of the 0.01 percent has more than quintupled. The top 0.01 percent of US households had at least $111 million in net worth in 2012, compared to $4 million for the 1 percent.”

What’s even more interesting is the median wealth in the US is 99.9% less than the wealth of the 0.01% while the 0.01% have 99.9% less wealth than Jeff Bezos.

(The bottom quintile has about 99.9% less wealth than the median)

And how has all that accumulated wealth prevented "average joe" from becoming more successful? How has it decreased the "average joe's" chances from accumulating their own wealth?

 

[blackangst1]

Wow this is very naive. A complete lack of understanding where wealth comes from and no understanding of how large businesses can and have absolutely crushed small businesses, reduced competition to control wages.

Oh Im full aware of how giants can crush small businesses. Without going into specifics, I owned a small business in the early 90's that was crushed by a huge one so I know exactly what its like. The opposite happens often as well. Just ask Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, and Jawed Karim.

 

[blackangst1]

A) the rich didn't create that wealth on their own. They have a long list of people (their employees) to thank for getting them where they are.


Sure the pie grows, but if things were distributed at a constant level, the proportioning of the pie wouldn't change. 20% of 1x pie is lower than 20% of 2x pie, but you're still at 20% of the total pie in either scenario (because percentages normalize things relative to some reference value, e.g. the current amount of available pie).

The fact that the pie has grown, and the rich also have a larger share of that larger pie, absolutely means things are disproportionate, and increasingly disproportionate.

So? Im still waiting to hear how a billionaire prevents an individual from starting, and making successful, their own? You DO know 80% of the richest Americans didnt get it from inheritance, right?

 

[Fenixgoon]

And how has all that accumulated wealth prevented "average joe" from becoming more successful? How has it decreased the "average joe's" chances from accumulating their own wealth?

Because wealth allows you to essentially buy laws (via lobbying) that create socio-economic conditions that favor capital rather than labor, and limit economic mobility. How are you supposed to start a business if you have a chronic condition, over which you have 0 control, and have to take horrendously expensive drugs in order to prevent medical emergencies? You'll either die trying, or pay absolutely out the ass for health insurance as an individual. This is a perfect example of how tying health insurance to employers limits innovation and economic mobility.

It's actually spelled out pretty nicely by a member of the billionaire-class in this TED Talk:

 

[blackangst1]

A) the rich didn't create that wealth on their own. They have a long list of people (their employees) to thank for getting them where they are.


Sure the pie grows, but if things were distributed at a constant level, the proportioning of the pie wouldn't change. 20% of 1x pie is lower than 20% of 2x pie, but you're still at 20% of the total pie in either scenario (because percentages normalize things relative to some reference value, e.g. the current amount of available pie).

The fact that the pie has grown, and the rich also have a larger share of that larger pie, absolutely means things are disproportionate, and increasingly disproportionate.

Do you have any idea how many millionaires and billionaires Bill Gates has created?

 

[Fenixgoon]

Do you have any idea how many millionaires and billionaires Bill Gates has created?

is that somehow supposed to justify the wealth gap that has grown over the last 20+ years?

 

[blackangst1]

Because wealth allows you to essentially buy laws (via lobbying) that create socio-economic conditions that favor capital rather than labor, and limit economic mobility. How are you supposed to start a business if you have a chronic condition, over which you have 0 control, and have to take horrendously expensive drugs in order to prevent medical emergencies? You'll either die trying, or pay absolutely out the ass for health insurance as an individual. This is a perfect example of how tying health insurance to employers limits innovation and economic mobility.

It's actually spelled out pretty nicely by a member of the billionaire-class in this TED Talk:

I love hearing billionaires talk about how capitalism is so bad, then imagine them driving home (one of his six) in a Ferrari patting himself on the back. All the while enjoying the wealth he speaks so highly against keeping him in the top .01%.

On his Wiki, it says:

In June 2014, Hanauer wrote an op-ed for Politico magazine in which he foresaw pitchforks coming for his "fellow .01%ers" if they did not address the issue of increasing wealth inequality. He noted how it would result in the destruction of the middle class and damage to the wealthy class. He made comparisons to the period preceding the French Revolution in the 18th century.

Guess he loves pitchforks since he's still in the top .01%?

Brings tears to my eyes, really.

 

[blackangst1]

is that somehow supposed to justify the wealth gap that has grown over the last 20+ years?

Nothing I could say would justify it in your eyes. Or the other billionaires who harp against it, all the while using their wealth to stay in the top .01%. No one but the envious hates rich elites who keep using the erroneous "wealth pie".

 

[Fenixgoon]

Nothing I could say would justify it in your eyes. Or the other billionaires who harp against it, all the while using their wealth to stay in the top .01%. No one but the envious hates rich elites who keep using the erroneous "wealth pie".

So you'd be perfectly ok with a society where the majority of the population lived in either poverty or wage slavery, a small portion live comfortably, and then a very small fraction have more wealth than they know what to do with?

Edit: in the 3 months where jeff Bezos' wealth increased by $76B, do you think he worked 1.27 million times harder or smarter than the median income worker? Did he do anything different than the prior 3 months? Prior 3 years?
Because $76B is 1.27 million median income years.

 

[blackangst1]

So you'd be perfectly ok with a society where the majority of the population lived in either poverty or wage slavery, a small portion live comfortably, and then a very small fraction have more wealth than they know what to do with?

All I see is talk. No one has a plan that doesn't basically eliminate capitalism. Our congress sure likes things the way they are.

What I don't want is a society where outcomes are guaranteed.

 

[Fenixgoon]

All I see is talk. No one has a plan that doesn't basically eliminate capitalism. Our congress sure likes things the way they are.

What I don't want is a society where outcomes are guaranteed.

You didn't answer the question. It's a simple yes or no.

 

[blackangst1]

You didn't answer the question. It's a simple yes or no.

I'm open to alternatives.

 

[blackangst1]

I'm open to alternatives.

Show me a plan that doesn't attempt to equalize outcomes, does not involve giving the poor more welfare but rather corrects the issue... Letting the poor and middle class accumulate more wealth... I'd be interested. Teaching the rich doesn't accomplish anything other than pad senators pet projects and creating an even more dependence on the government.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Nothing I could say would justify it in your eyes. Or the other billionaires who harp against it, all the while using their wealth to stay in the top .01%. No one but the envious hates rich elites who keep using the erroneous "wealth pie".

One word explains it: GREED! Majority of the wealthy won't even pay a living wage, but rather pay minimum wage or the lowest wage they can get away with, without a care in the world about their employees, because they are expendable. The don't have to, they chose to, because they can, and it makes them richer.

If greed wasn't the driving factor, the wage gap wouldn't be what it is today. It also wouldn't require both parents working to support a family, with a large portion of at least one of the parents having to work more than one job. While the wealthy rakes in the money.

This "everyone can do it" is true in the motivation sense only because there has to be a workforce. In the days when the wage gap was't really that large of a difference the workforce earned a honest wage for a honest days work. Those days are gone because of the greed of the wealthy, who have molded the system to work in their favor and to make it increasingly more difficult for the common joe to gain any of the wealth.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Show me a plan that doesn't attempt to equalize outcomes, does not involve giving the poor more welfare but rather corrects the issue... Letting the poor and middle class accumulate more wealth... I'd be interested. Teaching the rich doesn't accomplish anything other than pad senators pet projects and creating an even more dependence on the government.

you'll still didn't answer my question. again, it's a simple yes or no - do you want a society where the majority of people live in poverty or wage slavery?

nonetheless i'll take a stab at what i think would make a marked difference:

1) increase taxation on the ultra wealthy
2) overhaul of tax code to simplify taxation
3) tax income based on its amount rather than its source.
4) universal healthcare
5) increased investment in infrastructure, including construction/transportation, energy transmission, and municipal broadband
6) targeted investment in under-served communities to increase home ownership, community development, and small business development
7) continued and increased investment in clean energy research and construction
8) increased federal minimum wage, including applying to restaurant workers and other "tip-based" jobs that get exempted.

 

[blackangst1]

It wasnt a yes or no question. I said Id be open to possibilities based on a few things (already listed). My replies are in bold.

you'll still didn't answer my question. again, it's a simple yes or no - do you want a society where the majority of people live in poverty or wage slavery?

nonetheless i'll take a stab at what i think would make a marked difference:

1) increase taxation on the ultra wealthy I disagree. Taxation simply takes a tiny amounth (which really wont matter to them) and gives it to the government. I dont think the government can make people wealthier. Only create an environment whereby THEY THEMSELVES can become wealthy.
2) overhaul of tax code to simplify taxation Thats pretty broad. And I know you arent talking about a flat tax.
3) tax income based on its amount rather than its source. Completely 100% disagree. This would affect middle income retirees more than the wealthy.
4) universal healthcare Pretty broad. And the last attempt at any form of universal healthcare (ACA) benefitted the wealthy drug companies more than the average American.
5) increased investment in infrastructure, including construction/transportation, energy transmission, and municipal broadband. Much of that is local. But I agree we need better infrastructure.
6) targeted investment in under-served communities to increase home ownership, community development, and small business development I have no idea what this means.
7) continued and increased investment in clean energy research and construction We're doing fairly well with that right now. Well, private companies are thanks to incentives.
8) increased federal minimum wage, including applying to restaurant workers and other "tip-based" jobs that get exempted. 100% disagree. Instead of legislating how much people make we need to incentivize private industry to pay more. Period.

 

[blackangst1]

One word explains it: GREED! Majority of the wealthy won't even pay a living wage, but rather pay minimum wage or the lowest wage they can get away with, without a care in the world about their employees, because they are expendable. The don't have to, they chose to, because they can, and it makes them richer.

If greed wasn't the driving factor, the wage gap wouldn't be what it is today. It also wouldn't require both parents working to support a family, with a large portion of at least one of the parents having to work more than one job. While the wealthy rakes in the money.

This "everyone can do it" is true in the motivation sense only because there has to be a workforce. In the days when the wage gap was't really that large of a difference the workforce earned a honest wage for a honest days work. Those days are gone because of the greed of the wealthy, who have molded the system to work in their favor and to make it increasingly more difficult for the common joe to gain any of the wealth.

Who the fuck ISNT greedy? Do you not try and save money when you can? Do you not try and get the lowest taxes you can? If you owned a small business would you not want to create the highest profit yet make a widget everyone wants?

If you answered no to any of those, thats as insincere of an answer as possible. Greed isnt always bad, and doesnt always involved stepping on someone else. In THAT regard, if your company created a widget that widgetted better than another company, you wouldnt take advantage of that? Please. Of course you would.

 

[nickqt]

I love hearing billionaires talk about how capitalism is so bad, then imagine them driving home (one of his six) in a Ferrari patting himself on the back. All the while enjoying the wealth he speaks so highly against keeping him in the top .01%.

On his Wiki, it says:

In June 2014, Hanauer wrote an op-ed for Politico magazine in which he foresaw pitchforks coming for his "fellow .01%ers" if they did not address the issue of increasing wealth inequality. He noted how it would result in the destruction of the middle class and damage to the wealthy class. He made comparisons to the period preceding the French Revolution in the 18th century.

Guess he loves pitchforks since he's still in the top .01%?

Brings tears to my eyes, really.

Yes, we know.

Conservatives hate in-group "traitors" who critically think about their in-group. RINOs, of course. But also those rich people who are class traitors because they - gasp - believe the economy is rigged to favor the rich.

Billionaires who want to change the economy to help everyone else are "class traitors", and you just laugh and laugh at them wanting to help the economy and everyone else, while they don't just pile their cash up and set it on fire to become a mooching poor.

They stay rich while also critically thinking about how the economy is rigged for their benefit.

Class traitors, like RINOs...the worst of the worst.

Yeah, we get it.

 

[blackangst1]

Yes, we know.

Conservatives hate in-group "traitors" who critically think about their in-group. RINOs, of course. But also those rich people who are class traitors because they - gasp - believe the economy is rigged to favor the rich.

Billionaires who want to change the economy to help everyone else are "class traitors", and you just laugh and laugh at them wanting to help the economy and everyone else, while they don't just pile their cash up and set it on fire to become a mooching poor.

They stay rich while also critically thinking about how the economy is rigged for their benefit.

Class traitors, like RINOs...the worst of the worst.

Yeah, we get it.

No you got it wrong. If they believed being wealthy was actually a bad thing they'd give away everything, and separate themselves from the things that made them wealthy. And live longer is normal people.

Who has done that? Not many. At all. They flail themselves with the evils of capitalism yet keep themselves as beneficiaries of said evils. In other words, they don't believe their own words enough to change. Hypocrisy as it's finest.

And it's not a conservative or liberal thing. It's a human thing.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Who the fuck ISNT greedy? Do you not try and save money when you can? Do you not try and get the lowest taxes you can? If you owned a small business would you not want to create the highest profit yet make a widget everyone wants?

If you answered no to any of those, thats as insincere of an answer as possible. Greed isnt always bad, and doesnt always involved stepping on someone else. In THAT regard, if your company created a widget that widgetted better than another company, you wouldnt take advantage of that? Please. Of course you would.

You seriously need to go look up the definition of greed. Saving money, trying to keep taxes down have nothing to do with greed. Making a profit with a business can be done without greed influencing the profit margin. The very fact you don't understand the difference is disturbing.