The rich stay rich and the poor stay poor.

[Magpai]

Because rich people favour welfare...lol

If this is sarcastic, then you didn't read my post very well.

[Orcbert]

Lol? Economic equality is a fool's goal. The only way it can be accomplished is by mass deprivation of economic freedom, especially to the common consumer, as our example illustrates. I'll choose prosperity over "equality" any day.

Agreed. No one said there should be economic equality because there is never going to be equality among every worker. We don't all bring the same skills and same ambition. Some people bring disproportionate intelligence and effort. They deserve to get more. Same for the reverse.

[Theinquisition]

im wondering the same thing as masark. my friends and i did very well in college and none of us were able to go for free. we had scholarships, but definitely not enough to make it free.

Did my time in the military, my college is free.

In fact the state im going to be going to college in has its own combat veteran scholarship, so ill be able to get my school for free and pocket the extra GI-Bill money.

If your willing to sacrifice, there is reward.

Problem is, so few people are willing to sacrifice, but expect everything handed to them.

[Kraenen]

Lol? Economic equality is a fool's goal. The only way it can be accomplished is by mass deprivation of economic freedom, especially to the common consumer, as our example illustrates. I'll choose prosperity over "equality" any day.

Prosperity for few then.

- - - Updated - - -

If this is sarcastic, then you didn't read my post very well.

No I read it fine. Do you really think rich people would support more welfare?

[Magpai]

Agreed. No one said there should be economic equality because there is never going to be equality among every worker. We don't all bring the same skills and same ambition. Some people bring disproportionate intelligence and effort. They deserve to get more. Same for the reverse.

I hate to kick you in the mouth after you agree with me, but I don't think you have it quite right (though you're far closer than about half of the voting public, to be certain). Free market economics isn't about how much you "deserve"; there's no intrinsic "value" or "deserve-ness" to people or their products. It's not about deserving a good living, it's about making yourself financially valuable to someone. The two often go hand in hand, but not everyone who "deserves" a good living based on their skills makes it, but that's just life.

[Notos]

My family came here (the US) with virtually nothing in the way of money and possessions and are fairly well off now. My parents had to work their asses off though.

[Felya]

Everybody knows... That's how it goes...

http://youtu.be/bhh4DcUbQJQ

[Magpai]

Prosperity for few then.

When you have the choice of going to Starbucks or going to a small independent place, it's prosperity for you as well.

No I read it fine. Do you really think rich people would support more welfare?

if you had really "read it fine", it would be obvious that the point I was making is that rich people DON'T want more mouths to feed.

[Drekker17]

I think it is the stupidest statement I ever read. I mean seriously, the majority of rich people were not always the upper class. In relation to the op's nonsensical statement that no matter how smart or athletic you are you will never be rich, do you really think all those professional athletes were a bunch of upper class kids? Yes a poor person won't become middle or upper class by their mere existence, but they a certainly not doomed to be poor forever.

[Zechs-cenarius]

There are so many low income programs in the US its ridiculous. Nevermind the fact that if you are a certain ethnic background its even easier. So NO just because you are poor does not mean you are shit out of luck. That just means you require more self discipline. Honestly that is all that is required out of life. The sooner anyone and I MEAN ANYONE understands that Time is their most precious commodity, that they can never buy it or get it back then it will be a massive change. Until then, yes the poor stay poor and the rich get richer.

[Orcbert]

The reality is that american wage elasticity is very poor and declining. Look it up, get educated. Stop making up BS about people you don't know (idle rich).

How many rich do you know? I've had close interactions with a few. They are machines. They work from they're huge house, they have enough money to do whatever they want for the rest of their life, and they still put in 90 hours a week. The rich I've met are not idle. They don't punch the clock at 40 hours and say, "I'm done." I am very educated on the subject. I know what it takes to be one of these people and I don't want to do it.

I'm lower class. I grew up middle class. I've had some bad luck along the way but at no point do I not know how I got here. I can point out the decisions in my life that I could have made that would have made me a financially richer person. However I'm happy with how it turned out. Money would be great, but I would not give up what I have now for it. I could have a job I hate. I could have rejected the family life. I didn't, and those are both points that lead me to my current situation.

Define what is happening with American wage elasticity. I've looked it up and there are only definitions as to labor elasticity. Is there another name that it goes by because there is no info on wage elasticity.

[Itisamuh]

It's true to a point, at least on the rich side of things. Poor people can bring themselves up to normal if they're disciplined, but it's very hard to get ahead. And being rich is much like royalty, after the first generation it's no longer earned, it's just being born lucky. Also, people must have a pretty warped view of reality if you think going to college guarantees good money. That's not even close to accurate.

[Orcbert]

It's true to a point, at least on the rich side of things. Poor people can bring themselves up to normal if they're disciplined, but it's very hard to get ahead. And being rich is much like royalty, after the first generation it's no longer earned, it's just being born lucky. Also, people must have a pretty warped view of reality if you think going to college guarantees good money. That's not even close to accurate.

There are a few people that are lucky enough to be born into money. Honestly though, so what? If Dad earned enough money to cover the next 10 generations and he wants to then good for him.

If his son takes that money and turns it into more then good for him. If his son takes that money and lives a life of luxury and never contributes then Dad payed for it. So what?

Your point on college in modern times does warrant being pointed out. Times have changed. I think college is pressed too hard on kids. If Mikey is skating by on B's and C's maybe he'll be happier learning a trade skill. He won't go 75G's in debt and he's making money almost immediately. I think middle class families are the most guilty on blowing money on a college for a kid it's not appropriate for. They come out with worthless degrees in bloated fields.

Overall I think we should have less people going into college and more dedication to trade skills. Society acts like there's shame in being a mechanic but it's a great job. It's a lot more worth while then some guy who has a Business degree that he earned by barely passing.

[Kraenen]

I hate to kick you in the mouth after you agree with me, but I don't think you have it quite right (though you're far closer than about half of the voting public, to be certain). Free market economics isn't about how much you "deserve"; there's no intrinsic "value" or "deserve-ness" to people or their products. It's not about deserving a good living, it's about making yourself financially valuable to someone. The two often go hand in hand, but not everyone who "deserves" a good living based on their skills makes it, but that's just life.

I hand it to you to give such an apt account of the free market. But don't you see the intrinsic evil, the same one you would fight when its name is "democracy" and "socialism"?

[Deleted]

Someone who's poor can become rich, and someone who's rich can become poor, but not everyone can be anything, and it's not always simply up to the person.

Generally, as a statistic, in the US the rich have been getting richer and the poor have been getting poorer for long time now. The amount of wealth as a percentage of all the wealth available that the rich have has gotten higher and higher, and the number of poor people in comparison to the rich and reasonably well off has been rising.

So, in general, the statement is true.

[Kraenen]

How many rich do you know? I've had close interactions with a few. They are machines. They work from they're huge house, they have enough money to do whatever they want for the rest of their life, and they still put in 90 hours a week. The rich I've met are not idle. They don't punch the clock at 40 hours and say, "I'm done." I am very educated on the subject. I know what it takes to be one of these people and I don't want to do it.

I'm lower class. I grew up middle class. I've had some bad luck along the way but at no point do I not know how I got here. I can point out the decisions in my life that I could have made that would have made me a financially richer person. However I'm happy with how it turned out. Money would be great, but I would not give up what I have now for it. I could have a job I hate. I could have rejected the family life. I didn't, and those are both points that lead me to my current situation.

Define what is happening with American wage elasticity. I've looked it up and there are only definitions as to labor elasticity. Is there another name that it goes by because there is no info on wage elasticity.

We're both just talking personal anecdotes, so I suggest we steer clear of that avenue. (Though I do wish people would get rid of this mentality that everything that happens in the world is in your power because you decide everything you do). Economic mobility is the better term to use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:In...ty_graph-1.jpg

" just 8 percent of American men at the bottom rose to the top fifth. That compares with 12 percent of the British and 14 percent of the Danes. Despite frequent references to the United States as a classless society, about 62 percent of Americans (male and female) raised in the top fifth of incomes stay in the top two-fifths, according to research by the Economic Mobility Project of the Pew Charitable Trusts. Similarly, 65 percent born in the bottom fifth stay in the bottom two-fifths."

So yes, I'll agree there are people who rise up in SEC, but you'd have to prove that 92% of people at the bottom simply lack discipline.

[sizzlinsauce]

you can always commit fraud, take that money from it and move to another country and try making it big there? lulz'

[melodramocracy]

Personally, I do believe it. A person can have a brilliant mind or superior athletic prowess but still be held back their entire lives because they lack money.

Capitalism, by design, generally facilitates that there are far FAR more poor* people than wealthy ones. Money flows upstream at a much higher rate than downstream. This will change only when the current economic system is abandoned (by choice or neccessity) and not a minute sooner.

The one factor that is rarely mentioned is that of luck and / or timing. Many extremely skilled / talented people have died penniless because they were in the wrong place @ the wrong time, or didn't know the right people, were swindled out of their efforts, etc.

The saying 'the cream rises to the top' is what folks tell themselves to make it easier to sleep at night. There are exceptional stories of course, but talent on its own doesn't get it done.

*Please note that I use the term poor here as a relative one. In the US for example, poverty level is quite different than in other countries, however the discrepancy between poverty and the highest earners is profound.

[Evil Inside]

college is free if you're a good student

Or if you live in Australia :P

[Magpai]

I hand it to you to give such an apt account of the free market. But don't you see the intrinsic evil, the same one you would fight when its name is "democracy" and "socialism"?

I don't see anything intrinsically evil in someone not getting what they want.