Inequality in America is getting worse according to top economists

[Poopymonster]

It's gonna trickle down so hard under Trump, you don't know what to do with all that money!

We're gonna have so many jobs, you'll be working 2 or 3!

[Belize]

Second try: I am not saying he will do it, I am saying that Hillary surely would not do it.

But who cares, she isn't President.
Deflect all you want, it doesn't help your argument at all. Guess what, had Charles Manson been elected President, I wouldn't foresee the economy getting better either.

[Kraenen]

Some other things like inflation, general material wealth (which keeps going up) are probably a lot more important and meaningful than inequality. I doubt the mere fact that most people have a lot less than the richest in income is anything other than jealousy-invoking.

[Draco-Onis]

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.

Except that does not happen it never has trickle down economics has never worked, the rich do not reinvest they put the money away in bank accounts. As evidenced by the recovery corporations do the same thing or stock buybacks or M & A that leads to more job cuts.

[Poopymonster]

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.

That used to work, now it's just used to fuel profits, and be happy you have a job peons!

[Dug]

And it's only going to get worse. No US politician to my knowledge has actually expressed trying to tackle the issue aside from Bernie. Least not seriously that is. Clinton and other dems do make it a talking point but I don't really believe they're sincere.

[Revi]

Umm if the 1% share is growing exponentially while the bottom 50% is falling. Of course there is a link. Basic economics..

Same deal as the statistics that took the rounds in the media recently about the top 1% in the world having as much wealth the the bottom 50% or something like that, causing everyone to fret about how much the 1% is hoarding money and exploiting the bottom 50% - while totally ignoring the fact that the report conveniently left out, that both of those groups and combined own an abysmally small amount of the total wealth, rest of which is in the hand of the remaining top 49%.

I cant remember the numbers, but let's say the top 1% and bottom 50% had the same wealth, and combined they had 10% of the total wealth in the world. That means the other top 49% has 90% of the wealth, 18 times more than the bottom half. But because that doesn't spark as much outrage, the media totally ignored it. So everyone was up in arms about the super rich being the whole problem, when it was all just misrepresented statistics.

Just because the numbers sound super unfair doesn't mean that there's not more to the problem.

[Barnabas]

Trade with other countries is also basically the only thing keeping some major industries alive.

See --> corn exports for an example. Trade isn't all bad like you'd want people to think.

Here is the attempted defense of the status quo. That status quo being trade agreements currently in place benefit the top 1% of each country involved. Thanks for supporting the exploitation of everyone else including yourself.

[Project 501D13R]

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.

That's the biggest fattest lie ever told, the dow is a high as it's ever been which means companies are making tons of money, they do this by forcing risks and costs onto their work force, they continually offshore jobs and money to other countries. The economy has literally been reduced to abusing people because that's how you maximize profit nowadays.

[Theodarzna]

Yeah, Hillary would totally have taxed the guys who funded her campaign!!!

WHAT?! How dare you suggest that Hillary was anything less than a RADIANT LIGHT unto all peoples and all places! As we all know she was -50% corrupt and basically Jesus, but better because she was a woman, and a woman politician cannot ever be evil.

[Nadiru]

Income inequality is small and irrelevant potatoes.

The real issue is the rise of wealth inequality.

Both Wealth & Income inequality are symptoms of another problem, especially in the US. In the US' case it's USD's reserve currency status which both forces up the domestic savings rate and widens both the wealth and income gaps. We couch trade disputes in terms of trade flows, but because of the global financial system they can be equally couched in terms of capital flows, which is especially important to a discussion about currency valuations.

When Country A exports net savings to Country B, if Country B suffers from underinvestment because it is constrained by insufficient access to domestic and foreign savings, Country A’s net export of savings would cause an increase in wealth in Country B. Otherwise it would cause either an increase in debt or an increase in unemployment or, what is more often the case, an increase in debt followed by an increase in unemployment. This process is pretty automatic, especially when there is no mechanism to impose discipline, as with a gold backed currency.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I was led to believe by the Trump voters, Trump fans, cult of Trump, and Trumpkins that Trump was not a wall street insider, that he was not a part of the establishment, that he would smash the banks and wall street, and bring prosperity and good fortune to all the good middle American white folk who lost their factory jobs in the recession, and in general over the last 30 years.

Now that he's proven that he IS wall street, that he IS the banks, that he IS the establishment elite (just a bit of an outsider because he's a massive narcissist and thus socially awkward with the washington elite) I've been told "WELL ALL POLITICIANS LIE, THIS IS NOTHING NEW, WHAT DID YOU EXPECT", and I'm sitting here thinking "Wait, didn't you tell me that Trump WASN'T a politician, that he wasn't a liar, that you were voting for Trump because he WASN'T all those things, and Hillary WAS all those things?"

I mean, Hillary did talk about the income inequality, but whenever she did the conservatives would boo her offstage. She said she wanted to fund retraining efforts for those who had lost their jobs, since factory jobs just simply aren't coming back to the US, but I've now gotten the impression that the mere fact that Hillary SENT EMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAILS means she's devilHitlerSatanChildSexRing and couldn't be trusted with this country.

But now you're telling me... that in face of Trump lying to you... that all politicians lie... so wait... why did you claim Trump was different than Hillary, I just... *Head literally explodes from trying to comprehend the massive hypocrisy from the right, starts picking up pieces of brain*

[Beet]

Well you know what the answer isn't?

Promising people the jobs they lost overseas or to automation are going to come back when they aren't.

- - - Updated - - -



Except Trump is the president, and he's the one that has to deal with this problem.

But I mean come on, the silver-spoon-in-mouth born new york billionaire was definitely the right choice to solve income inequality, right?

How's that swamp draining been going?

But Hillary totally would have done things better right? I mean because the poor really prospered under Obama! Or maybe we needed Bernie in so he could drive us straight to the shitter by making everything free.

Also I knew this would be a Tennisace thread the moment I clicked it. Almost all threads negative about America come from him, our classic content aggregator. I love it. I take breaks from MMO-C, but one thing never changes and that's Tennis with the content aggregatation.

[Nadiru]

I mean, Hillary did talk about the income inequality, but whenever she did the conservatives would boo her offstage. She said she wanted to fund retraining efforts for those who had lost their jobs, since factory jobs just simply aren't coming back to the US, but I've now gotten the impression that the mere fact that Hillary SENT EMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAILS means she's devilHitlerSatanChildSexRing and couldn't be trusted with this country.

Retraining efforts have been a talking point for the Democrats since NAFTA was signed. Nothing more than a talking point, mind. Hilldawg was a crummy candidate because she was a wooden ventriloquist's dummy and very visibly so, and display matters more in politics than anything else. Put it another way, Clinton was John Kerry (female) and only the #MentallyHill could ignore it.

[Beet]

And it's only going to get worse. No US politician to my knowledge has actually expressed trying to tackle the issue aside from Bernie. Least not seriously that is. Clinton and other dems do make it a talking point but I don't really believe they're sincere.

Because if the issue is tackled then even more wealth leaves the country. Tax the rich businesses more if you want. They'll just go elsewhere and they'll raise prices on everything to offset the tax increase.

[Super Kami Dende]

Have and Have nots?

More like Not Lazy and Lazy.

[Dug]

Because if the issue is tackled then even more wealth leaves the country. Tax the rich businesses more if you want. They'll just go elsewhere and they'll raise prices on everything to offset the tax increase.

Is that not what Trump is essentially proposing but for completely different motives?

[Nadiru]

Because if the issue is tackled then even more wealth leaves the country. Tax the rich businesses more if you want. They'll just go elsewhere and they'll raise prices on everything to offset the tax increase.

Taxation isn't the problem and neither is American labor policy. In fact, this is not a domestic problem but an international one. The US will continue to accrue debt and unemployment until it imposes currency controls on international purchases of T-bills.

[Belize]

Here is the attempted defense of the status quo. That status quo being trade agreements currently in place benefit the top 1% of each country involved. Thanks for supporting the exploitation of everyone else including yourself.

Trade benefits the producers, in this case would be the farmers of states like Iowa.

Good try misrepresenting the problem, but you still fall short of understanding. I would suggest going to school to study the matter, but I doubt DeVos School of Buying Positions in Government would be of much help, since it works only for the 1% you hate so much.

[Super Kami Dende]

I mean, Hillary did talk about the income inequality

I'm sure she really cared Just like how she talk about Marriage equality after being completely against for years up until... Wow up until she wanted Votes from the very same people she was against!

It's almost as if she was a lying manipulative cunt that just said shit she thought would win her votes! Kind of like the Guy that actually Won that you seem to hate so much.

*cough* hypocrite *cough*