wealth inequality

[oxymoronic]

keep hearing about this... yet rockefeller was worth approx 10x what bill gates is worth in today's money.

[Ripster42]

keep hearing about this... yet rockefeller was worth approx 10x what bill gates is worth in today's money.

I hadn't heard it was that much. Bill gates is worth about 80, rock was worth about 550. And when it got that bad there were things called labor riots. Not something I'm really trying to get back to, and was what started the whole union rights/workers rights movement. You're not exactly extolling the virtues of big wealth divides.

[oxymoronic]

I hadn't heard it was that much. Bill gates is worth about 80, rock was worth about 550. And when it got that bad there were things called labor riots. Not something I'm really trying to get back to, and was what started the whole union rights/workers rights movement. You're not exactly extolling the virtues of big wealth divides.

so things have become a lot better in the last 100years. i agree.

[May90]

Just a bit over 150 years ago there was slavery in the US, and the inequality between slaves and the richest citizens was magnitudes higher than the inequality we are facing nowadays. Even 60 years ago black population was waaaaaay worse off than the poorest free whites, so... People who say that inequality nowadays is the highest in the history of the US probably haven't studied the history in question much.

[oxymoronic]

Just a bit over 150 years ago there was slavery in the US, and the inequality between slaves and the richest citizens was magnitudes higher than the inequality we are facing nowadays. Even 60 years ago black population was waaaaaay worse off than the poorest free whites, so... People who say that inequality nowadays is the highest in the history of the US probably haven't studied the history in question much.

you had me till 60years ago black pop way worse off than the poorest whites... you say you studied history then you would know black people owned slaves as well and being a free black man in the north was quite common. also slavery was not legal everywhere in the USA since its inception. a lot of myths get repeated and people think they are true.

[May90]

you had me till 60years ago black pop way worse off than the poorest whites... you say you studied history then you would know black people owned slaves as well and being a free black man in the north was quite common. also slavery was not legal everywhere in the USA since its inception. a lot of myths get repeated and people think they are true.

60 years ago slavery was long done for, mate...

[oxymoronic]

60 years ago slavery was long done for, mate...

no shit... which is why his statement is even more wrong. just saying since the inception of america blacks have owned blacks. you either poor, or you're not. white people couldnt go into a store and get free food cause they were simply white. black and white people starved the same.

[cuafpr]

http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/21/news...ass/index.html

seems relevant.. it always amazes me how "little" it takes for people to be in the upper class esp if you are single with no kids. I don't think i make that much but i'm in the top 20% where i lived based on being single / no kids....

[ArmoredDragoon]

Just a bit over 150 years ago there was slavery in the US, and the inequality between slaves and the richest citizens was magnitudes higher than the inequality we are facing nowadays. Even 60 years ago black population was waaaaaay worse off than the poorest free whites, so... People who say that inequality nowadays is the highest in the history of the US probably haven't studied the history in question much.

A lot of people live in a mindset of "we're living in the worst of times ever, and the good old days were much better", but it's a load of crap. Another common thing they say is that America is more divided now than ever, and yet for that to be true, we'd need a civil war. As for wealth in the past vs now...well, look back at the 80's for example:

- Only super rich people had car phones and they paid a lot for them. Today basically EVERYBODY has a cell phone and they pay less for them than the typical person paid for landlines even in the 90's when they got cheaper.
- Only really wealthy people had 55" TVs, and they were those massive front projection screens that took up a lot of space, used up a lot of power, and had a picture quality that was total crap compared to today's big screen TVs. Nowadays even the poor can afford 55" and higher TVs that have 4k resolution, are only an inch in thickness, and use only a fraction of the power that much smaller TVs used.
- VCRs were really expensive in the early 80's, and not everybody had one. Today Blu-Ray players are super cheap. But who needs that when $8 a month can get you instant access to your content now?
- Only high end universities and businesses had T1 speed internet access. Yet now T1 is considered really slow compared to a modern broadband connection, which only costs a fraction of the price of a T1.
- High end computers cost upwards of today's equivalent of $20,000 in the 80's. Now even poor people carry around laptops that would outperform a supercomputer in the 80's.
- Turn by turn navigation systems were very expensive and very rare in the 80's. Nowadays it's a standard feature in phones that people carry in their pockets.
- Food is cheaper now than it has ever been, when adjusted for inflation.
- Airline tickets today are so cheap that basically anybody can afford to go anywhere.

Also another thing worth point out: It used to be that only rich people owned cars, and those cars were crap compared to cars that you can buy for as cheap as $500 used today.

Now somebody out there is probably thinking "oh but incomes are down, so we're less wealthy" which is just flat out wrong. Wealth is NOT income. Wealth is literally defined as material goods you possess. Today's American poor have access to things that would make kings of yesterday jealous. And somehow we're supposed to believe that we're now more poor than ever???

[oxymoronic]

A lot of people live in a mindset of "we're living in the worst of times ever, and the good old days were much better", but it's a load of crap. Another common thing they say is that America is more divided now than ever, and yet for that to be true, we'd need a civil war. As for wealth in the past vs now...well, look back at the 80's for example:

- Only super rich people had car phones and they paid a lot for them. Today basically EVERYBODY has a cell phone and they pay less for them than the typical person paid for landlines even in the 90's when they got cheaper.
- Only really wealthy people had 55" TVs, and they were those massive front projection screens that took up a lot of space, used up a lot of power, and had a picture quality that was total crap compared to today's big screen TVs. Nowadays even the poor can afford 55" and higher TVs that have 4k resolution, are only an inch in thickness, and use only a fraction of the power that much smaller TVs used.
- VCRs were really expensive in the early 80's, and not everybody had one. Today Blu-Ray players are super cheap. But who needs that when $8 a month can get you instant access to your content now?
- Only high end universities and businesses had T1 speed internet access. Yet now T1 is considered really slow compared to a modern broadband connection, which only costs a fraction of the price of a T1.
- High end computers cost upwards of today's equivalent of $20,000 in the 80's. Now even poor people carry around laptops that would outperform a supercomputer in the 80's.
- Turn by turn navigation systems were very expensive and very rare in the 80's. Nowadays it's a standard feature in phones that people carry in their pockets.
- Food is cheaper now than it has ever been, when adjusted for inflation.
- Airline tickets today are so cheap that basically anybody can afford to go anywhere.

Also another thing worth point out: It used to be that only rich people owned cars, and those cars were crap compared to cars that you can buy for as cheap as $500 used today.

Now somebody out there is probably thinking "oh but incomes are down, so we're less wealthy" which is just flat out wrong. Wealth is NOT income. Wealth is literally defined as material goods you possess. Today's American poor have access to things that would make kings of yesterday jealous. And somehow we're supposed to believe that we're now more poor than ever???

but but im liberal and i want it all! and i want it now!

work for it you say?

fuck u

[xChurch]

A lot of people live in a mindset of "we're living in the worst of times ever, and the good old days were much better", but it's a load of crap. Another common thing they say is that America is more divided now than ever, and yet for that to be true, we'd need a civil war. As for wealth in the past vs now...well, look back at the 80's for example:

- Only super rich people had car phones and they paid a lot for them. Today basically EVERYBODY has a cell phone and they pay less for them than the typical person paid for landlines even in the 90's when they got cheaper.
- Only really wealthy people had 55" TVs, and they were those massive front projection screens that took up a lot of space, used up a lot of power, and had a picture quality that was total crap compared to today's big screen TVs. Nowadays even the poor can afford 55" and higher TVs that have 4k resolution, are only an inch in thickness, and use only a fraction of the power that much smaller TVs used.
- VCRs were really expensive in the early 80's, and not everybody had one. Today Blu-Ray players are super cheap. But who needs that when $8 a month can get you instant access to your content now?
- Only high end universities and businesses had T1 speed internet access. Yet now T1 is considered really slow compared to a modern broadband connection, which only costs a fraction of the price of a T1.
- High end computers cost upwards of today's equivalent of $20,000 in the 80's. Now even poor people carry around laptops that would outperform a supercomputer in the 80's.
- Turn by turn navigation systems were very expensive and very rare in the 80's. Nowadays it's a standard feature in phones that people carry in their pockets.
- Food is cheaper now than it has ever been, when adjusted for inflation.
- Airline tickets today are so cheap that basically anybody can afford to go anywhere.

Also another thing worth point out: It used to be that only rich people owned cars, and those cars were crap compared to cars that you can buy for as cheap as $500 used today.

Now somebody out there is probably thinking "oh but incomes are down, so we're less wealthy" which is just flat out wrong. Wealth is NOT income. Wealth is literally defined as material goods you possess. Today's American poor have access to things that would make kings of yesterday jealous. And somehow we're supposed to believe that we're now more poor than ever???

So because technology advanced, people should be happy earning shit wages?

[ArmoredDragoon]

So because technology advanced, people should be happy earning shit wages?

I didn't say anything to that effect. What I'm saying is that the premise that we're more poor than we've ever been is a big load of horse shit, and it basically comes about from the "now is the worst of times to live in" mentality.

As for being happy...well...if you're either an ultraliberal or a socialist, you probably won't like hearing this, but this pretty well known, and you can ask any professional in the field of psychology and they'll tell you the same thing:

Whether or not you're happy, and indeed how you feel about the world around you, your self esteem, and how good or bad you think your life is, is entirely up to you. These are actually decisions that you make, whether you consiously make them or not. Oh, and remember that "now is the worst of times to live in" mentality I mentioned earlier? It fits here as well. And speaking very objectively, it's also measurably wrong.

That said, having money likely won't make you more happy. You might think it will, but it probably won't. Increased wealth (that is, material goods) probably won't either. This is due to a well known concept called the hedonic treadmill:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill

Believe it or not, rich people are often just as miserable as those who wish they were rich. Read this:

http://happierhuman.com/hedonic-treadmill/

[Endus]

I didn't say anything to that effect. What I'm saying is that the premise that we're more poor than we've ever been is a big load of horse shit, and it basically comes about from the "now is the worst of times to live in" mentality.

The problem with your argument is that you're looking at what were, at one time, luxury items, and suggesting that people today aren't "poor" because what used to be a luxury item is now commonplace and cheap.

It used to be that only the wealthy had indoor toilets, too. That doesn't make an indoor bathroom a "luxury", in this day and age.

Wealth inequality isn't about overt hardship, it's about a wealth distribution model that unfairly advantages the top earners at the explicit and deliberate expense of all other workers. Those wealthy aren't making more money through their sweat and tears, they're making more money by scraping off higher and higher percentages of the gross revenue of their companies, while doing their best to limit any such reward to their employees.

That's not theory. That's observable statistics, for the last 50 years.

[May90]

So because technology advanced, people should be happy earning shit wages?

But they aren't earning "shit wages". If you want to experience earning "shit wages", go to a third world country and work 60 hours a week for $200 a month - now that's "shit wages". The minimum salary in the US allows a person to rent their own place and have a stable life, always having enough money for food, clothes, etc. - and that's minimum, the vast majority of people earn way more than that. Median quality of life in the US is one of the highest in the world, so when people talk about "shit wages" in the US, I wonder: what do they compare them to?

Sure, if you work your whole life in McDonalds in a rundown town, your life won't be fancy. But you will still have a financial security on the level unavailable to the poor back in the old days. A person living on the minimum wage in 70-s would be almost homeless, compared to how they live now. Plus, no one prevents you to spend some time on self-education and land a better job; people who never do anything to improve their lives have only themselves to blame, and even in states with high welfare such people tend to not do very well.

[Endus]

But they aren't earning "shit wages". If you want to experience earning "shit wages", go to a third world country and work 60 hours a week for $200 a month - now that's "shit wages". The minimum salary in the US allows a person to rent their own place and have a stable life, always having enough money for food, clothes, etc. - and that's minimum, the vast majority of people earn way more than that. Median quality of life in the US is one of the highest in the world, so when people talk about "shit wages" in the US, I wonder: what do they compare them to?

Comparing them to developing countries is dishonest. The inequality is within their own country.

And you vastly overestimate the stability of the American worker's lifestyle. 1 in 7 households in the USA struggle to put food on their tables; http://www.loavesfishes.org/the-need...FQERaQodHHQF7Q

That things could be worse is the most egregious kind of "let them eat cake" dismissiveness, made even worse by the fact that that statement's apocryphal and Antoinette was never that deluded.

[coolbeans2]

Plus, no one prevents you to spend some time on self-education and land a better job; people who never do anything to improve their lives have only themselves to blame, and even in states with high welfare such people tend to not do very well.

By this logic there are no social problems since anyone can do anything if they just try enough.

[May90]

Comparing them to developing countries is dishonest. The inequality is within their own country.

And you vastly overestimate the stability of the American worker's lifestyle. 1 in 7 households in the USA struggle to put food on their tables; http://www.loavesfishes.org/the-need...FQERaQodHHQF7Q

That things could be worse is the most egregious kind of "let them eat cake" dismissiveness, made even worse by the fact that that statement's apocryphal and Antoinette was never that deluded.

I worked for the minimum salary in Virginia for 3 months in 2010, and I would get around 30 hours per week - I did just fine. Didn't live like a king, sure, but I had a stable decent life still. When people talk about "shit wages", apparently they compare them to something. My question is: to what? I wasn't only talking about developing countries; most developed countries still offer salaries way below what the US offers. I think there are only 3 Western countries in the world with salaries higher than in the US: Switzerland, Sweden and Australia.

Many households struggle, sure. The reason for that, however, mostly is poor decisions. A family with two parents and two kids in which only one parent works and gets a minimum wage, of course, will be in trouble; but then, they shouldn't have gotten kids before their financial situation improved, and to improve it they should have improved their skills to be able to get better jobs and better savings. It is simply illogical to get oneself into a financial pit by taking loans and getting kids while not doing anything towards getting better jobs - and then blame the government or the corporations for offering "shit wages". Once again, "shit wages" compared to what?

By this logic there are no social problems since anyone can do anything if they just try enough.

Anyone can, but not anyone does. But even those who do not, mostly still can live decently in the US, if they aren't stupid to try to live better than they can afford. People say in the past it was different - when and where? When was the time when a person getting minimum salary was better off than now in the US?

[coolbeans2]

I worked for the minimum salary in Virginia for 3 months in 2010, and I would get around 30 hours per week - I did just fine. Didn't live like a king, sure, but I had a stable decent life still. When people talk about "shit wages", apparently they compare them to something. My question is: to what? I wasn't only talking about developing countries; most developed countries still offer salaries way below what the US offers. I think there are only 3 Western countries in the world with salaries higher than in the US: Switzerland, Sweden and Australia.

Many households struggle, sure. The reason for that, however, mostly is poor decisions. A family with two parents and two kids in which only one parent works and gets a minimum wage, of course, will be in trouble; but then, they shouldn't have gotten kids before their financial situation improved, and to improve it they should have improved their skills to be able to get better jobs and better savings. It is simply illogical to get oneself into a financial pit by taking loans and getting kids while not doing anything towards getting better jobs - and then blame the government or the corporations for offering "shit wages". Once again, "shit wages" compared to what?


Anyone can, but not anyone does. But even those who do not, mostly still can live decently in the US, if they aren't stupid to try to live better than they can afford. People say in the past it was different - when and where? When was the time when a person getting minimum salary was better off than now in the US?

People are going to want to have kids, dude, and I think it's reasonable that they do. Your solution is "just say no."

[Masark]

I worked for the minimum salary in Virginia for 3 months in 2010, and I would get around 30 hours per week - I did just fine. Didn't live like a king, sure, but I had a stable decent life still.

Really? So you had health insurance, enough savings to cover deductible/co-pays, and 6 months worth of expenses saved?

[May90]

People are going to want to have kids, dude and I think it's reasonable that they do. Your solution is "just say no."

No, my solution is, if people want to have kids, then they should put in enough work to be able to provide for them. People want many things; I want a personal helicopter, for example. You don't see me asking for a wage making it affordable just because I want it, I understand that, to be able to afford it, I need to work hard.

If you want a state in which everyone gets what they want just by being citizens, well, such state probably exists only in fantasy fiction. But if you want a state in which vast majority get their standard needs and desires fulfilled just by working, then that would be the US. Two parents with two kids, each working full-time on minimum salary, is WAY-WAY-WAY a financially better family than the one I was growing in - and we weren't exactly starving either. If someone is dissatisfied with that and wants a significantly higher quality of life at minimum salary... Well, I guess oil states, such as Qatar or UAE, will work for them, since other states don't seem to be able to provide that.

Really? So you had health insurance, enough savings to cover deductible/co-pays, and 6 months worth of expenses saved?

Didn't have 6 months worth of expenses saved. I worked for 3 months, how could I earn 6 months worth of spending in that time?