Inequality in America is getting worse according to top economists

[Glnger]

You sound like Reagan. How have the policies inspired by him worked for the "bottom 50%" since the 1980's?

Your assertion of what those companies do with their increased capital is in fact not what has happened. Real wages have stayed stagnant and barely moved. Job quality and the number of middle class positions have gone down.


Anyway, the USA is an oligarchy. Trump or Hillary is a meaningless choice if you're looking to address wealth inequality.

ya... it's that ever growing tax burden on giant corporations that's crushing the middle class..../sarcasm. Also being able to dump more toxic wastes into rivers/landfills, that will help employ more people via EPA and environmental deregulation..../sarcasm.

that last time we did a "tax vacation" HP for example brought back in billions of dollars, bought shares of their own stock (i might be explaining this bit wrong) and laid off 8000 workers within that same time frame. as just one example of what the guy you quoted is proposing.

sorry nitros, was more kind of replying to jaylock's post i guess.

[Foaming Clean]

When you cut taxes on the "rich" (this includes big corporations) it allows them the capital to hire more employees and raise wages for their employees. This is also called reinvesting in the business to make the business grow. It helps everyone, including the stakeholders of the business.

Also lowering taxes on small businesses and reducing red tape allows them to do the same, just on a smaller scale.

Simple economic sense. Hence, the "bottom 50%" see their wages increase and increased jobs.

It always amuses me that that's been counter argument for 40 years and the desparity has just kept growing under the pratice. I also enjoy when people ignore the fact that we've been through unregulated markets in the past and mass exploitation of the poor is why we created regulations.

I'm too noob to post links but I think Jack Ma shares some reasonable insights on this during his 2017 Davos interview.

[Jaylock]

It always amuses me that that's been counter argument for 40 years and the desparity has just kept growing under the pratice. I also enjoy when people ignore the fact that we've been through unregulated markets in the past and mass exploitation of the poor is why we created regulations.

I'm too noob to post links but I think Jack Ma shares some reasonable insights on this during his 2017 Davos interview.

It amuses me that you and people like you think that all big corporations are just greedy and the only goal is to stiff their employees and the people around them.

If you would just stop for a second and actually think... actually use your brain and consider logical reasoning and think, would a company stay in business if they were not providing a good or service that people actually wanted or needed? In a free market society, its the people (you and me) who dictate weather that business succeeds of fails based on our level of satisfaction with the product that they provide by speaking with our wallets.

If corporations are not living up to the expectations of their customers they eventually go out of business. If people think a corporation is unfairly treating their employees, or are practicing unethical business practices, then wouldn't the logical thing be to just stop shopping there? And by the way, CEOs and high level executives actually are paid those high amounts BECAUSE of the very fact that they worked their asses off to get there. Most put in 80 hour weeks to run and keep a fortune 500 company running efficiently. And guess what, if they don't, they are fired by their board of directors.

I always laugh when the liberal ideology comes up to apply MORE govt regulation, MORE taxes, MORE hits to the "rich", when it is those same "rich" people who are driving the economy and making it possible for the majority of Americans to actually have a living. This also applies to smaller business owners (those that employ 50-500 people) who are very well off because of their business.

The last thing we need is for the government to tell people how to spend their hard earned money.

Less red tape, less taxes = more benefit for everyone. When corporations have less taxes to pay, they have more money to invest in their business.

Have a nice little read here, this will educate you in this principle:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/...edearnings.asp

Furthermore, guess who was president for the last 8 years that created a system where the earnings divide could even look like that? I guarantee it wasn't because of him shedding red tape and reducing taxes....

[Macaquerie]

You sound like Reagan. How have the policies inspired by him worked for the "bottom 50%" since the 1980's?

Your assertion of what those companies do with their increased capital is in fact not what has happened. Real wages have stayed stagnant and barely moved. Job quality and the number of middle class positions have gone down. How is this accounted for since we've seen a decrease in government regulation and an increase in tax cuts for the rich since the 1980's?


Anyway, the USA is an oligarchy. Trump or Hillary is a meaningless choice if you're looking to address wealth inequality. It won't change until it hits a critical mass of discontent and dysfunction.

Arguably, trickle down policies do not actually benefit the rich either, because it keeps the general public from being able to afford more of their products. However, at the end of the day, people are less motivated by money than by status and the greater the wealth gap, the better the elites feel about their position in society.

[Gestopft]

It amuses me that you and people like you think that all big corporations are just greedy and the only goal is to stiff their employees and the people around them.

The corporation's goal is to make a profit, which is fine, but often does come at the expense of employees. Profit motives provide little incentive to self-police, and the history of unions, labor laws, and regulations is, for the most part, a history of society having to force companies to stop being dicks.

If you would just stop for a second and actually think... actually use your brain and consider logical reasoning and think, would a company stay in business if they were not providing a good or service that people actually wanted or needed? In a free market society, its the people (you and me) who dictate weather that business succeeds of fails based on our level of satisfaction with the product that they provide by speaking with our wallets.

This also requires the customer to have a wallet capable of speaking.

If corporations are not living up to the expectations of their customers they eventually go out of business. If people think a corporation is unfairly treating their employees, or are practicing unethical business practices, then wouldn't the logical thing be to just stop shopping there?

Logical? Perhaps, but people in many places lack options. The worst offenders are often the only places that people can afford. The practices tend to spread around a particular industry too: whether its low wages, hiring mostly part-time employees, etc, said practices often provide a competitive edge which similar companies then emulate. The dynamic between employee and employer has shifted farther and farther to the favor of the employer in this country, companies and industries are taking advantage of that, and workers are losing. Until we start tilting the scales back towards the workers, we aren't going to see the wage growth that our economy desperately needs.

I always laugh when the liberal ideology comes up to apply MORE govt regulation, MORE taxes, MORE hits to the "rich", when it is those same "rich" people who are driving the economy and making it possible for the majority of Americans to actually have a living. This also applies to smaller business owners (those that employ 50-500 people) who are very well off because of their business.

Consumers drive the economy, the rich provide the fuel.

A healthy, growing market economy requires a strong consumer class (demand), and an investor class with enough capital to expand and grow businesses (supply). Right now, we have a historical amount of supply: the share of the top 1% is near record levels, corporate profits and profit margins are at record levels. Given the record levels of supply, we have to ask why the reinvestment in workers and our economy isn't happening. The answer, obviously, is because demand is suffering. Wages have stagnated, college, healthcare and other costs of living are rising well past inflation and wage growth, etc. The solution to our economic woes isn't going to be throwing more at the already overloaded supply side, but by policies that directly increase demand. This is the issue with the Republican approach: it's not that the logic isn't sound, it's that it completely ignores what the overriding problem with our economy is.

If supply-side policies were going to work, we would've seen the results by now.

Less red tape, less taxes = more benefit for everyone. When corporations have less taxes to pay, they have more money to invest in their business.

Actually, they dump massive portions of it into buying back stocks. Without more consumer demand, corporations have little incentive to reinvest. The effective corporate tax rate has been declining for decades, and it hasn't helped. In fact, after the recession, many of the least taxed companies lost jobs while the highest taxed companies added jobs. Taxes are also currently much lower than they were during the post-war boom before the slow degradation of the middle class began.

Furthermore, guess who was president for the last 8 years that created a system where the earnings divide could even look like that? I guarantee it wasn't because of him shedding red tape and reducing taxes....

The divide has been growing since the early 80's.

[Surfd]

Big numbers are scary. Check $25000 against the average income of the planet. It'd be significantly high compared to half the world. Who has it worse the lower class in the US or the lower class of the entire planet?

This relation you use satisfies the standard curve. Thanks for blowing the horn if bad statistical analysis.

Oh yes, lets compare Apples to Cinderblocks, Cause that will totally make for an accurate comparison. Bad statistical analysis? Your proposed example goes so far beyond bad it drops straight into a bottomless chasm of stupid.

[paralleluniverse]

This is what happens when you elect right-wing politicians like Trump who are obsessed with giving tax cuts to the rich, ripping healthcare from the poor, and gutting Wall Street regulation.

The Republican party has always been waging class war on the poor, for the rich.

[Deleted]

I see all the trump hating hippies are out in full force again blaming the wealth inequality in the US (that has been going on for 20+ years) on Trump who has been in office for like 100 days.
Good job making your self look stupid again...

That being said, I have never met a poor person in my life that did not make him self poor and I never met a rich person in my life that did not work damn hard for it.
I been working full time since I was 16 and I am a good middle class citizen now (working my way to upper class in the next few years hopefully). I have worked damn hard to be where I am. The poor people I know have done nothing to get them selfs out of that situation and are happy where they are.
Also to the people that "care so much about everyone else". How bout you start giving random other people on the other side of the country 80% of your paycheck and let the rest of us be happy with what we worked for. Or come up with a creative Idea to earn some money, maybe it will be come a business and even you can join the higher classes.

[Deleted]

So do everything you can do to be part of the "haves" and do everything you can to avoid becoming one of the "have nots".

Don't expect anything out there to change. If you want more, become more.
Just because there have been a few decades where it was easier to get something out of life (or parents/grandparents generation) doesn't mean you will have it easy too.
Actually, having a hard time in life is pretty much the ageless norm, so expect it to always be like that.

[Deleted]

When you cut taxes on the "rich" (this includes big corporations) it allows them the capital to hire more employees and raise wages for their employees. This is also called reinvesting in the business to make the business grow. It helps everyone, including the stakeholders of the business.

Also lowering taxes on small businesses and reducing red tape allows them to do the same, just on a smaller scale.

Simple economic sense. Hence, the "bottom 50%" see their wages increase and increased jobs.

This is the type of delusional ranting that allows for the disparity to continue. No it's not "simple" economics. If anything, economics is NEVER, EVER simple. You people never seem to realize that the sort of deregulation and employer freedoms you want on the market is the type that led to child labour and all the horrors of industrialized societies in the late 19th / early 20th centuries. I know I'm wasting letters here because your sort never bother to read anything but the tripe that flows through breitbart/fox but if you were to ever open a real source of human knowledge and fact you'd see that giving employers free reigns ALWAYS leads to misery and exploitation.

[Deleted]

So do everything you can do to be part of the "haves" and do everything you can to avoid becoming one of the "have nots".

Don't expect anything out there to change. If you want more, become more.
Just because there have been a few decades where it was easier to get something out of life (or parents/grandparents generation) doesn't mean you will have it easy too.
Actually, having a hard time in life is pretty much the ageless norm, so expect it to always be like that.

Issue is that we are nearing a turning point, where the inaccessibility to better yourself, will begin to effect even the haves.

[Chrno]

When you cut taxes on the "rich" (this includes big corporations) it allows them the capital to hire more employees and raise wages for their employees. This is also called reinvesting in the business to make the business grow. It helps everyone, including the stakeholders of the business.

Also lowering taxes on small businesses and reducing red tape allows them to do the same, just on a smaller scale.

Simple economic sense. Hence, the "bottom 50%" see their wages increase and increased jobs.

having the capital to hire more employees is great ... however if the company is running as it's supposed to do. There is no reason whatsoever to actually hire more people and if people don't run off there's also no reason to raise salary's. It could however push company's into investing more money into their company. This can mean they'll hire more peole tho it doesn't have to.

[Shibito]

Its funny when we talk about issues on mmo we talk like we can change any of it like we are responsible and able to change the world.

[Deleted]

Its funny when we talk about issues on mmo we talk like we can change any of it like we are responsible and able to change the world.

You and you alone are in charge to change your life. If you don't want to be in the bottom 50% then fucking work for it, just like most of the top 1% have done (or their parents have if they inherited it).

[Glorious Leader]

When you cut taxes on the "rich" (this includes big corporations) it allows them the capital to hire more employees and raise wages for their employees.

People still buy this bullshit? Oh fuck its jay nm

- - - Updated - - -

You can thank Friedman for this.

- - - Updated - - -



This would be interesting if the topic was world wide income. But alas.

- - - Updated - - -



When you can mortgage, insure, pay propery taxes / school taxes on, and reserve repair and upkeep money for a house equivalent to what you can rent a similar place for, you let me know.

To be fair i suspect that uncle milt and the chicago boys were not much more than useful idiots for rich elites. The keynesian approach to macro was under strain and uncle milt and the boys had the good fortune to be around at the right time and also arguing for policies in the interest of capital.

[NED funded]

People still buy this bullshit? Oh fuck its jay nm

- - - Updated - - -



To be fair i suspect that uncle milt and the chicago boys were not much more than useful idiots for rich elites. The keynesian approach to macro was under strain and uncle milt and the boys had the good fortune to be around at the right time.

Old-style Keynesianism has been proven to be wrong on a lot of it's core ideas. See Japan.

[andresity]

The author of the article is pretty retarded and can't even keep her own facts straight.

Meanwhile, the bottom 50% of the American population earned an average of $16,000 in pre-tax income in 1980. That hasn't changed in over three decades.

And then in the pretty graphic it shows after tax income in 1980 of $21,000. Apparently in 1980, after tax income magically increased by $5000 over pre tax income. lol ok . How convenient to also leave out that the median US household income is actually ~$53,000 while poorly misconstruing it as if 50% of the US population is living on 25k.

The author was also too dense (or too biased) to realise that her source was driven by political ideology more than anything else.

The entire article is based on "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" by Thomas Piketty, which despite remaining popular has since been pretty rigorously debunked by many other economists. His central thesis is that inequality between the rich and the non-rich is an unsustainable feature of capitalism that left unaddressed will lead to some unknown dire societal disaster. Sounds awfully familiar doesn't it. Almost like it could be referring to another book similarly called "Das Kapital" by Karl Marx. Well no surprise, it's word for word the marxist theory of class struggle penned all the way back in 1800 when Marx "predicted" the collapse of an unsustainable "capitalist" Britain with the eventual rise of the proletariat against the rich greedy bourgeois. Well, no such event came to pass. In science, the truthiness/utility of a hypothesis is usually supposed to be evaluated by comparing observation with falsifiable predictions.

And then in the early 1900's some idiots got it into their head that Marx just absolutely had to be right and so they accelerated the process by essentially skipping the organic proletariat uprising part, violently seizing political control and forcefully redistributing wealth in what we now know as the USSR and Communist China. Both projects failed and millions died. Oops.

Now that you know this, would it surprise you to learn that Piketty in his book relied on the totally defunct and ridiculous Marxian Labour Theory of Value, where the value of a good or service is determined by the "socially necessary" labour required to produce it instead of its utility to a buyer? Would it surprise you to learn that he consistently blames the free market for every economic disruption without once even considering the possibility that government restriction, suppression, regulation, and cronyism may have actually been the cause? It's like throwing a bomb into a house and then blaming the builder for the house falling down without ever questioning whether the bomb had anything to do with it. It would be funny if not for the vast hordes of people who are getting duped onto the inequality bandwagon through unsound economic reasoning.

The guy doesn't even understand what capitalism is (voluntary trade, private property, competition) and tries to redefine it as 'capital returns in comparison to economic growth'. Never does he ask how capital grows, or more crucially how wealth is earned and created. I could go on and on. TL;DR The article contradicts itself, it's based on bunk from 2 years ago, which is based in turn based on a dystopian fiction novel from 200 years ago.

[Glorious Leader]

Old-style Keynesianism has been proven to be wrong on a lot of it's core ideas. See Japan.

Not really. The japanese case has mitigating circumstances. The core of keynes is empirically and logically correct. Managing aggregate demand is essential. The supply side clowns like uncle milt have had 30 years and weve seen mostly stagnation or decline except for the very top. This should.not be surprising.

[Super Friendly Kitty Cat]

Yeah trickle down to the shareholders of Lockheed Martin and Raytheon. Trump was supposed to drain the swamp and be an isolationist I thought.

Liberals: "Let's expand immigration and ignore illegal immigration for the sake of diversity! Let's flood our labor pool with unskilled to educated immigrants willing to work far below market value for their work."

Business Owners/Corporations: "Thanks liberals!"

Liberals: "WTF, why is there so much income inequality? I don't understand!"

Business Owners/Corporations: "You can't be this fucking stupid?"

[Tehshocka]

Liberals: "Let's expand immigration and ignore illegal immigration for the sake of diversity! Let's flood our labor pool with unskilled to educated immigrants willing to work far below market value for their work."

Business Owners/Corporations: "Thanks liberals!"

Liberals: "WTF, why is there so much income inequality? I don't understand!"

Business Owners/Corporations: "You can't be this fucking stupid?"

OMG LOL THIS SO MUCH!

Thank god, God Emperor Trump is fixing the H1-B travesty plaguing my industry.