Inequality in America is getting worse according to top economists

[Spectral]

Would you like to present some actual logic beyond "lol McD" as to why someone who is gainfully employed should not make a living wage?

I think we'd have to start with how one would define a "living wage". I think MIT's calculator is probably a decent starting point, but it doesn't include government transfers, so it's going to fail to accurately describe the living standard for people that receive significant benefits like EITC or SNAP. Still, it's not bad.

Somewhat arbitrarily selecting my home county, I get a living wage of ~$10.50. That's about $1.50 below the median McD's cook wage, which suggests that you'd need to either receive a government subsidy, a higher minimum wage, live a very frugal lifestyle, work more than 40 hours (working 50 hours puts someone at $9/hour well above a living wage and it's not really that unreasonable), or hope for advancement (or some combination thereof).

I think it's a fine argument to make that someone in that position should either receive a direct subsidy or a higher wage. It also doesn't really seem that dire if a typical person can have the lowest skill imaginable job and can basically live OK (not great, but OK) by working a bit more than full time. As I typically reiterate in these threads, my position would be to increase direct subsidies via changes to either the EITC, another negative income tax, or a UBI.

[Deianeira]

Would you like to present the opposite? My statement was addressing the exact sentiment that those people are trying to imply. So instead of answering my "Why should low skill jobs be something to live on?" you decide to say why not as if you're somehow making a point. Sorry, but you need to address the why before making me answer why not considering I was not the one who is suggesting that McDonalds be giving enough money to raise a family.

you do realise that not everyone can have a highskilled job right? There is not enough of those jobs to go around. You have to know that? So what are those that want to work a skilled job and get the education for it supposed to do if they cant live on unskilled jobs?

[kamuimac]

you do realise that not everyone can have a highskilled job right? There is not enough of those jobs to go around. You have to know that? So what are those that want to work a skilled job and get the education for it supposed to do if they cant live on unskilled jobs?

move to place where such jobs are - simple as that - alternatively ? go homeless - life is brutal - get used to it.

[Shadowferal]

Thanks for the ignorant-mixed-with-arrogant retort.
I got exactly what I expected.

You never answered the question and doled out bullshit instead. (You actually believe that nonsense?)
Trickle down theory never worked.
If it had this thread could have easily been disproven...y'know, with facts?

If you are treading water to stay afloat where you are, I suggest you move to somewhere where their are more opportunities.

You deliberately missed the fucking point to shit-post?
You've no idea of what poverty means..it's just some game to you isn't it?

Agreed, but Trump voters don't want to hear it.

Trump voters are the one posting their support for failed economic theories like trickle down nonsense.
Or are you like them...thinking a person without money can actually move...?

+ nice video proving that criminal tendencies run deep in genes - instead working hard stealing is always easier choice - thief will be alwys a thief regardless of circusntance.

That explains the wealthy...

actully its very good advice - works for many EU countries very well why wouldnt it work for US too ?

I was right. You have no clue of how things are done in the US.
Moving takes money...a lot of it. And when there's zero support you're stuck right where you are.

[Nfinitii]

Funny how many ppl r like fuck trump when the 1% got richer under the obama economy and act like the Clintons would have improved things. Guess what folks, they don't give a shit about u. Ur choice was between someone bought by the 1% or the 1%.

[Vash The Stampede]

+ nice video proving that criminal tendencies run deep in genes - instead working hard stealing is always easier choice - thief will be alwys a thief regardless of circusntance.

Ned Kelly was either a thief or a modern day robin hood. Depends on how you look at it. But it was the wealthy that created him. I have parents who stole food to survive back in Europe because they couldn't afford food. My grandfather from my mothers side had changed his name for such an act, to protect himself.

People become thieves when honest work doesn't pay. A thief is created by the wealthy, and not by the lazy. If you saw the rest of the videos on Ned Kelly, you would see he wasn't lazy. What made him an outlaw was the unfair treatment the wealthy did to his family. He robbed banks but gave some money to the people in the town and burn their deeds so they didn't owe anymore money to the rich. The cornered mouse will fight the cat.

most of them - just from sheer number of poor people - its the same principle as with banks - banks make most $ on poor people because of how many of them are out there yet give best treatment to VIP customers who usually are much more avare of econimics and dont let banks make too much of their deposits (preferential loans , they are offered much better bank products etc ) which is hillarius but that the world for you - harsh and unfair

That doesn't answer my question. Who has taxed the poor where it worked out? What country has taxed the wealthy and it failed? In America where we used to tax the wealthy more, we were able to land on the moon. I can think of times where taxing the poor hasn't worked. What you're suggesting is like the lottery is a tax on those who can't do math.

[Stacyrect]

You never answered the question and doled out bullshit instead. (You actually believe that nonsense?)
Trickle down theory never worked.
If it had this thread could have easily been disproven...y'know, with facts?

You deliberately missed the fucking point to shit-post?
You've no idea of what poverty means..it's just some game to you isn't it?

Trump voters are the one posting their support for failed economic theories like trickle down nonsense.
Or are you like them...thinking a person without money can actually move...?
That explains the wealthy...

I was right. You have no clue of how things are done in the US.
Moving takes money...a lot of it. And when there's zero support you're stuck right where you are.

Nope, I lived in a very liberal state (Connecticut) where even as a business owner I was "treading water". Between higher costs for food, insurance, electricity, heat, rent, etc, I was treading water personally netting anywhere between 50-65k a year. I only worked between 7-8 months out of the year because my industry is seasonal. Was sole provider in my house hold, also responsible for a 470$ a month alimony payment.

We moved to wisconsin and our cost of living is about 1/3 of it what it was in Connecticut. Currently, our mortgage (home/landlord insurance included), utilities, cell phones, car insurance, food budget, is just under a 1000$ a month.

It doesn't cost a lot to move. You can literally get a bus ticket almost anywhere in this country on the cheap. If I were just by myself and making the same move from Connecticut. This is how much it would have cost me for travel.

From ledyard Connecticut to New York
http://locations.greyhound.com/bus-r...ny#fare-search 15$

From New York to Chicago
http://www.gotobus.com/new-york-to-chicago-bus/ 55$

Chicago to Fon Du Lac, WI ( or appleton same cost)

http://locations.greyhound.com/bus-r...wi#fare-search 25$
http://locations.greyhound.com/bus-r...wi#fare-search


Room on Craigslist
https://appleton.craigslist.org/roo/6095823853.html 80-100$ a week (First month) 240$-400$

Food budget for 4 weeks (2200 calories) 125$

Total cost to move from Connecticut to Wisconsin, secure 4 weeks of lodgings and food= 620$

Kwik Trip offers full time + overtime + starts at around 11$ and change an hour, 12 for 3rd shift.

600$ is not a lot of money. Even if you made 0$ in 2016, chances are you'd still get at least 500$ from a federal tax return file.

- - - Updated - - -

Great advice, people with no money should move, what a great idea. But hey it doesn't cost anything to move right?

I used to live in CT so I know how fucked you feel

- - - Updated - - -

Better question, what country has taxing the poor worked out? And exactly how many countries tried to tax the wealthy and it failed?

The poor aren't subject to federal taxs in America. If you create higher taxs for the wealthy, they just move their money into a tax haven. Either way, you can't tax your way out of the problem.

[Lenonis]

This thread turned out about how I expected:
1) Conservatives being completely unable to discuss anything without bringing up Hillary. Like she's even relevant anymore at this point.
2) Conservatives even when faced with data directly contradicting their statements continue to push trickle down as a viable economy plan for the US.
3) Conservatives blaming poor people for being poor with zero acknowledgement of the systemic and societal issues that present barriers to people exiting the cycle of poverty. Usually because they met one poor person one time (supposedly) who used their food stamps to buy lobster.

I simply cannot fathom at this point why conservatives ignore the realities of wealth consolidation and the rise of corporate profits and still push trickle down. It directly contradicts the facts, human behavior, and reality. And I honestly have no idea why most of the ordinary folks, like the ones posting on these forums, push for policies that directly harm them. Why not just hand your checks over to the rich if you think that's what will benefit the economy. That's what you tell people who want more taxes -- donate your money to the IRS. So if you want trickle down donate your money to the 1%.

But you won't -- because somewhere deep down you know it's bullshit but you are too partisan to admit it.

[Vash The Stampede]

The poor aren't subject to federal taxs in America. If you create higher taxs for the wealthy, they just move their money into a tax haven. Either way, you can't tax your way out of the problem.

There's poor and then there's those who don't make any money. If you don't make any money, you can't be taxed. On the other hand, moving your money into a "tax haven" is very much using a loop hole and should be illegal. Probably is illegal but who's going to tell the wealthy to stop or hold them accountable?

[Queen of Hamsters]

The 99% and the 40% in particular just needs to work harder and want being rich harder. This goes for every country, but I assume that being part of the bottom in the US is worse than being part of the bottom in other countries...

[BannedForViews]

LOL@50% making 25k or less. 50% of what? All people? So like 70 Million 18 and youngers, and an equal or larger number of retirees? What about stay at home spouses? Gotta love statistics.

Now if you think 50% of full time employees are making 12.5$ or less....I've got some property on the moon to sell you.

[Nadiru]

The collapse of those institutions would have not been without consequences for the economy as a whole. They were already too big to fail. Something needed to be done. Bailing them out as was done was problematic but simple letting them fail at the expense of well everyone else was not an option.

Debts tend to accumulate faster than the ability to pay them. Thanks to the magic of compound interest. A reset mechanism is needed. A jubilee.

A jubilee will also have consequences for the economy as a whole, and the scale of the jubilee will be much larger now than it was even 8 years ago. Furthermore, sovereign debt forgiveness may be necessary but insufficient on its own.

[Glorious Leader]

A jubilee will also have consequences for the economy as a whole, and the scale of the jubilee will be much larger now than it was even 8 years ago. Furthermore, sovereign debt forgiveness may be necessary but insufficient on its own.

Sovereign debtors dont necessarily all need jubilees. Greece probably does the united states doesnt. The focus of the jubilee is largely to clear private debt burdens.

[Themius]

I thnk the problem when it comes to higher taxes on the "wealthy" is that they aren't talking about higher taxes on those who are making like 5-6m a year, it's higher taxes on those in the 150k-500k bracket and frankly the taxes are already too high in this bracket.

Like oh so you make 300k or so a year but you're single... okay almost half your pay, thank you. Like... no... higher taxes aren't needed in this bracket.

[Aori]

The 99% and the 40% in particular just needs to work harder and want being rich harder. This goes for every country, but I assume that being part of the bottom in the US is worse than being part of the bottom in other countries...

Hard work doesn't mean increased wealth, often times it means decreased wealth because a lot of the hardest workers face breakdowns which are financial catastrophes.

[Themius]

Hard work doesn't mean increased wealth, often times it means decreased wealth because a lot of the hardest workers face breakdowns which are financial catastrophes.

What are you talking about?

[khazmodan]

http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/22/news...le_videocrpool





This is crazy. The bottom 50% is making 25K a year?
Half the country surviving on that? How do they even make ends meet !?!?
We need action. I can't believe people voted in the new guy who is gonna cut taxes on the rich.

the solution to this problem is too hard to deal with for all the "safe space" people and that is stop allowing people to breed without earning it. eliminate low IQ and unmotivated genetics and you will get a better economy, period.

[Aori]

What are you talking about?

Just saying hard work doesn't equal more wealth, hard work also has the side effect of a broken human.

[Themius]

Just saying hard work doesn't equal more wealth, hard work also has the side effect of a broken human.

There are several types of hard work... mentally hard and physically hard.

[Draco-Onis]

I thnk the problem when it comes to higher taxes on the "wealthy" is that they aren't talking about higher taxes on those who are making like 5-6m a year, it's higher taxes on those in the 150k-500k bracket and frankly the taxes are already too high in this bracket.

Like oh so you make 300k or so a year but you're single... okay almost half your pay, thank you. Like... no... higher taxes aren't needed in this bracket.

When people are referring to unfair taxation they are not referring to income tax, also if you are in that bracket you should know the tricks so that your sole source of money is not income.