The Rate of Return on Everything; Inequality Will Only Get Worse

[Deleted]

Yes, keep waiting for that "revolution" that will absolutely make all of your lives magically better

If you got money, you can easily move all over the world anyway. If youre already struggling now, you will likely starve to death in times of a revolution.

[Jaransan]

why do you think economy is not working for the average worker? What do you think the solution should be? Tax the rich, so they don't make as much? What would that accomplish? Increase the minimum wage, thereby creating inflation and rising price of everyday service? Should we increase tax of the rich to 50%, and import more poor people from the third world nations, increase their quality of life? Should this be our holy mission?

- - - Updated - - -



do you think wealthy should be benevolent, not charge for use of something? Provide that something for free?

I think your missing the point. Your trying to imply that rich people do what they do to to the rest of us because they aren't implicitly benevolent and look out for themselves. What people are saying is that poor people drastically outnumber rich people, and that the democracy that supports those rich people, the politics that prop up the laws that allow rich people to prosper are increasingly being paid for by poor people. People who are paying for 80% of a system that is screwing them.

You're asking if we should expect rich people to be benevolent, but the point people are trying to make is that rich people get away with what they can, only so long as the poor maintain their own benevolence.

You can't have a system that only 3% of the people in the population benefit from and the other 97% get screwed on. It doesn't work explicitly because society only exists as long as the people in that society agree to a standard set of rules. And when your fucking literally everyone, the reasons to keep up with that social contract rapidly dwindle.

[PC2]

I think your missing the point. Your trying to imply that rich people do what they do to to the rest of us because they aren't implicitly benevolent and look out for themselves. What people are saying is that poor people drastically outnumber rich people, and that the democracy that supports those rich people, the politics that prop up the laws that allow rich people to prosper are increasingly being paid for by poor people. People who are paying for 80% of a system that is screwing them.

You know poor people don't pay much taxes, right?

You're asking if we should expect rich people to be benevolent, but the point people are trying to make is that rich people get away with what they can, only so long as the poor maintain their own benevolence.

You can't have a system that only 3% of the people in the population benefit from and the other 97% get screwed on. It doesn't work explicitly because society only exists as long as the people in that society agree to a standard set of rules. And when your fucking literally everyone, the reasons to keep up with that social contract rapidly dwindle.

97% are not getting screwed, at least not in my country. Poverty is only 14%. Most of the people I know are not in the top 3% but have good lives, they are not somehow getting screwed.

[Jaransan]

You know poor people don't pay much taxes, right?



97% are not getting screwed, at least not in my country. Poverty is only 14%. Most of the people I know are not in the top 3% but have good lives, they are not somehow getting screwed.

I was mostly just saying 97% beccause I was being generous about the oft maligned top 2% or whatever. That said 'poor people don't pay taxes' is an interesting thing to say, because A. They absolutely do and B. You can be poor and not be in poverty - although that gets into the whole 'work two jobs 60 hours a week total and can barely afford to live somehow' thing that America has going on. So when I say 'poor people' I mean the increasingly poorly compensated 'anybody who doesn't have a bunch of capital to reinvest' because the original article in the OP wasn't about people in poverty, it was about how working hard and pulling yourself up by your bootstraps literally can't measure up.

Understand I'm not one of those types that thinks we shoudl burn it all down and start a communist country or something. I don't want or honestly foresee some grand rebellion like some posters seem to. But when your talking about inequality between the haves and the have nots, you have to remember that there are alot more havenots than haves, and the system that alows the haves to function is based on the idea that no significant group of havenots will ever do anything about it.

[Ghostpanther]

Worked just the opposite for myself. I was born very poor and worked hard, made sacrifices and now live very comfortable. While to some I am not rich, when I compare it to how I use to live when I was young and to the great majority of the rest of the world's population, I am very rich indeed.

[PC2]

I was mostly just saying 97% beccause I was being generous about the oft maligned top 2% or whatever. That said 'poor people don't pay taxes' is an interesting thing to say, because A. They absolutely do and B. You can be poor and not be in poverty - although that gets into the whole 'work two jobs 60 hours a week total and can barely afford to live somehow' thing that America has going on. So when I say 'poor people' I mean the increasingly poorly compensated 'anybody who doesn't have a bunch of capital to reinvest' because the original article in the OP wasn't about people in poverty, it was about how working hard and pulling yourself up by your bootstraps literally can't measure up.

I said the poor don't pay much taxes. I didn't say they don't pay taxes at all.

Understand I'm not one of those types that thinks we shoudl burn it all down and start a communist country or something. I don't want or honestly foresee some grand rebellion like some posters seem to. But when your talking about inequality between the haves and the have nots, you have to remember that there are alot more havenots than haves, and the system that alows the haves to function is based on the idea that no significant group of havenots will ever do anything about it.

Your havenots need to educate themselves so that they have desired skills in the workforce. Nobody is going to hand them their own house, cars, and a good life in general. It has to be earned.

[Deleted]

Worked just the opposite for myself. I was born very poor and worked hard, made sacrifices and now live very comfortable. While to some I am not rich, when I compare it to how I use to live when I was young and to the great majority of the rest of the world's population, I am very rich indeed.

Good for you!

Honestly, in the West there are plenty of option to do well. But for some reason, many people just don't seem to understand how to actually build towards what you want in life and instead suffer from some strange form of learned helplessness, which I think often is given down from their parents and added upon in school.

[Vash The Stampede]

Don't worry guys, capitalism will fix everything. It's proven to work. Trickle down economics is a thing.

[bufferunderrun]

You know poor people don't pay much taxes, right?



97% are not getting screwed, at least not in my country. Poverty is only 14%. Most of the people I know are not in the top 3% but have good lives, they are not somehow getting screwed.

in world where economy is globalized you should understand that even poverty is globalized as well, richness is plundered from third world country and funneled to advanced countries and inside that is again funneled to the top 2% it change in shape and we used different word to describe it but the concept at the base still the same has 2000 year ago when roman legions conquered new territories to harvest more resources, or when nation had colonies, with the subject who benefit the most shifting from monarchies to big corporations.

Also while in your country the official poverty is only 14% but above that there is a whole big gray area of "barely afloat"peoples it could be identified with the lover part of the middle class.

[Sargerasraider]

I can't wait for this to justify policy for the rich getting richer.

The easy argument to this is that alternative policy is worse. It is easily demonstrable that Western countries today have the highest standard of living ever seen in history. This has come through innovations assisted by market capitalism. It is absurd to think that there would be revolution in a society where all but a tiny minority have needs met. We can argue about the size of the social safety net, but any argument for gung-ho socialism should be met with ridicule.

Already, the US tax code is extremely progressive, more than most other industrialized countries (see https://www.theatlantic.com/business...essive/252917/). Yes, U.S. tax collections overall are relatively low, but this is spurred by the fact that an enormous percentage of the population pays little to no tax.

[Elegiac]

The easy argument to this is that alternative policy is worse. It is easily demonstrable that Western countries today have the highest standard of living ever seen in history. This has come through innovations assisted by market capitalism. It is absurd to think that there would be revolution in a society where all but a tiny minority have needs met. We can argue about the size of the social safety net, but any argument for gung-ho socialism should be met with ridicule.

"The alternative policy". Because it's totally a binary and not a spectrum, right?

Market capitalism having positive aspects does not erase the bad aspects that need to be mitigated by socialism. Every developed economy is a mixed economy, and there is reason for that. The problem is that people like you keep trying to axe any and all mitigations and give the entirety of political power over to an oligarchy of corporate elites.

Late capitalism. *jazz hands*

Already, the US tax code is extremely progressive, more than most other industrialized countries (see https://www.theatlantic.com/business...essive/252917/). Yes, U.S. tax collections overall are relatively low, but this is spurred by the fact that an enormous percentage of the population pays little to no tax.

Said percentage including the people with all the money due to loopholes, deductions, and subsidies. Go figure.

[Shadowferal]

History has shown time and time again. When the poverse become desperate enough revolution will sort things out.

When people became enamored of the idea of communism, it was after the Robber Baron Era. And it was reinforced during the Hoover Admin...when people were living out of cardboard boxes.

[God8010]

I don't see the point of politics on mmo, the moderation is very bias even against posts that simply suggest without anger or fowl language.

Life gives you pain and strife so you can learn empathy and compassion.

Will I get points for this too?

[xChurch]

And yet many people will continue to ignore that Western economies are built on consumers and that the fewer money consumers have, the less money the rich will be able to get. But there will always been middle/lower class people who will argue that a billionaire deserves that extra billion more than everyone else, even if they themselves fall into that catagory. Money is a pie, and the majority has been allowing the minority to carve a increasingly big slice. The upside is, you still can't buy votes, people just to wake up.

[PC2]

And yet many people will continue to ignore that Western economies are built on consumers and that the fewer money consumers have, the less money the rich will be able to get. But there will always been middle/lower class people who will argue that a billionaire deserves that extra billion more than everyone else, even if they themselves fall into that catagory. Money is a pie, and the majority has been allowing the minority to carve a increasingly big slice. The upside is, you still can't buy votes, people just to wake up.

We already know heavy-welfare states aren't optimal, if that were the case then the countries with the most welfare would be economically growing faster than there counterparts. But that's not happening.

[Elegiac]

We already know heavy-welfare states aren't optimal, if that were the case then the countries with the most welfare would be economically growing faster than there counterparts. But that's not happening.

I'm curious how you think the economy is supposed to grow fast with a below-replacement birthrate.

People buying more stuff is the only thing keeping the economy afloat.

[Amerrol]

And yet many people will continue to ignore that Western economies are built on consumers and that the fewer money consumers have, the less money the rich will be able to get. But there will always been middle/lower class people who will argue that a billionaire deserves that extra billion more than everyone else, even if they themselves fall into that catagory. Money is a pie, and the majority has been allowing the minority to carve a increasingly big slice. The upside is, you still can't buy votes, people just to wake up.

Lol, not sure if serious?

[oxymoronic]

in world where economy is globalized you should understand that even poverty is globalized as well, richness is plundered from third world country and funneled to advanced countries and inside that is again funneled to the top 2% it change in shape and we used different word to describe it but the concept at the base still the same has 2000 year ago when roman legions conquered new territories to harvest more resources, or when nation had colonies, with the subject who benefit the most shifting from monarchies to big corporations.

Also while in your country the official poverty is only 14% but above that there is a whole big gray area of "barely afloat"peoples it could be identified with the lover part of the middle class.

uhh if anything riches has been plundered from advanced countries (usa) and funneled to poor countries (china, mexico, philippines).

- - - Updated - - -

Lol, not sure if serious?

if you could hillary would have won

she outspent trump by how much?> i want you to find the answer so you understand fully.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm curious how you think the economy is supposed to grow fast with a below-replacement birthrate.

People buying more stuff is the only thing keeping the economy afloat.

if you business model is more people (suckers for the bottom rung of the pyramid) then your model will eventually fail.

[Elegiac]

if you business model is more people (suckers for the bottom rung of the pyramid) then your model will eventually fail.

Based on....what? Your totally not biased assertions that immigrants are bad?

Demand is what drives economic growth; given that there is only so much demand that can be generated per capita, to keep the economy growing at a stable rate you need more people. That isn't happening with birth rates, so it has to be immigration.

[Underverse]

'Inequality getting worse' is natural law. Work needs to be done to prevent it from happening, otherwise it will continue.