US has the 4th worst income inequality among OECD countries

Chile, Mexico & Turkey!?! Ugh. Sorry, but our country does not belong on such a list with these 3.

non-PC history wrote:

http://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/Tackling-high-inequalities.pdf

Will the right wing please convince me that trickle down economics does indeed work?

It works for the promotion of income inequality, obviously.

If our politicians followed the people, rather than the plutocrats paying for their campaigns and lavish junkets, we'd have measures to combat this income inequality, such as a rise in the minimum wage, a more fair system of taxation in which wages aren't taxed at a much higher rate than investment income, and massive jobs programs from necessary infrastructure repairs costing trillions over the next decade.

Can any of you guys actually explain why income inequality is bad? The people at the bottom aren't starving. They have plenty of money so why does the inequality matter?

keters peter wrote:

Can any of you guys actually explain why income inequality is bad? The people at the bottom aren't starving. They have plenty of money so why does the inequality matter?

You stand corrected:

Perhaps we should work to increase their income and buying power so they are no longer hungry? Yes.

Who cares? As long as the overall standard of living improves, the only downside to inequality is increased jealously.

A billionaire getting wealthier does not take the bread or DirectTv out of a poor persons house.

Moose wrote:

keters peter wrote:

Can any of you guys actually explain why income inequality is bad? The people at the bottom aren't starving. They have plenty of money so why does the inequality matter?

You stand corrected:

http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america.aspx

Perhaps we should work to increase their income and buying power so they are no longer hungry? Yes.

No I don't stand corrected. Anyone with a minimum wage job has enough money for food. The problem is financial management.

1) People universally care about relative well-being. It is innate, found even in non-human primates.

2) Enormous inequality goes hand in hand with a small group of people controlling the system. Essentially similar to government by aristocracy (which is fundamentally un-American).

3) The greater the gap the more difficult it is for folks to move up. Such mobility is a part of the American ideal.

So, if you are not an American and also not a primate then there is nothing to be concerned about.

Captain America wrote:

3) The greater the gap the more difficult it is for folks to move up. Such mobility is a part of the American ideal.

How does a bigger gap make it more difficult to move up? Making more money is making more money. How much someone else makes doesn't affect that.

keters peter wrote:

Moose wrote:

You stand corrected:

http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america.aspx

Perhaps we should work to increase their income and buying power so they are no longer hungry? Yes.

No I don't stand corrected. Anyone with a minimum wage job has enough money for food. The problem is financial management.

I dont know what burg you live in, but here in Nor Cal minum wage would leave you making decisions of food or rent? Insurance or kids shoes? How do i get from bus stop to place of employment?

Sounds like financial and time management until you realize i multiplied minimum wage by 80 hours/week.

Minimum wage is a brutal miserable lifat sets you and any kid you might have up for long term poverty.

keters peter wrote:

Captain America wrote:

3) The greater the gap the more difficult it is for folks to move up. Such mobility is a part of the American ideal.

How does a bigger gap make it more difficult to move up? Making more money is making more money. How much someone else makes doesn't affect that.

Try to think. Without any apparent thought processes going on in your head it is not very interesting to 'interact' with you.

In case you are not capable of rational thought try looking up statistics on class mobility in the US over time. Maybe that will help you get started.

Two facts:1) The unprecedented 25-30 year period of growth that was lead by the US from the early 80s through the 2008 financial crisis (the ultimate downfall driven by the government's idiotic policies)... (Search for the YouTube video of Barney Frank telling everyone that there is no mortgage crisis- hilarious.)2) The poor - in both the US and worldwide - have never been better off.So... Out of curiousity, what policies put in place by Clinton do you feel helped reduce the income equality? Was it the welfare reform implemented in 95 that Liberals were viamately against because the poor would be starving in the streets? Was it cutting capital gains by a massive amount in '97, which are still intact (and have been a major topic against evil Republicans for Liberals in the last two elections)? Or was it starting the housing bubble ("evyone should own a house" BS), that ultimately popped and ended up hurting the people most that it was supposed to help?Here's an idea- maybe take a look at the trends from the standpoint of what was occurring technologically, and how the workforce changed because of it... Rather than insinuating that the president- the fukking president- produced better or worse income equality.Or are you 16 years old?

non-PC history wrote:

http://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/Tackling-high-inequalities.pdf

The U.S. has the fourth highest income inequality among OECD countries. Only Chile, Mexico, and Turkey have it worse.

There is a graph on page 3 that shows the rise of income inequality during the Bush Sr years, then it fell during the Clinton years, then rose significantly during Bush Jr. years, and rose during Obama's first 3 years and is falling after his 3rd year.

The richest 1% hold 20% of income and about 40% of income growth. The top 10% is 16 times as large as the poorest 10% where the average among OECD countries is 9.6.

Maybe The Pope is right in that trickle down economics does not work.

Will the right wing please convince me that trickle down economics does indeed work?

Captain America wrote:

Try to think. Without any apparent thought processes going on in your head it is not very interesting to 'interact' with you.

In case you are not capable of rational thought try looking up statistics on class mobility in the US over time. Maybe that will help you get started.

The problem here is that you don't understand statistics. They are observations. They are not causal. They are not explanations. So looking at those statistics is meaningless. What I said is true. How much money you have doesn't affect whether or not I can make more money than I currently have.

keters peter wrote:

Moose wrote:

You stand corrected:

http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america.aspx

Perhaps we should work to increase their income and buying power so they are no longer hungry? Yes.

No I don't stand corrected. Anyone with a minimum wage job has enough money for food. The problem is financial management.

How about we do the math and see who is correct? Minimum wage is $7.25 per hour, say you work 40 hours per week, then that is 40*$7.25 = $290 per week. Lets say taxes are 10% so that is $290*0.90 = $261 per week. A moderate cost for feeding a family of four is $239 per week. So if you make $261 and groceries cost $239 per week then that leaves you with $22 per week.

So I guess you can feed a family with a minimum wage salary.

BUT WHAT ABOUT ALL THE OTHER NECESSITIES? SHELTER, HEALTH CARE, TRANSPORTATION, CLOTHING, AND SEVERAL OTHERS???

Douchebag, you remain corrected, income inequality is BAD!!!

So send the guy some money, damn. He might have another kid too, so send enough for a family of 5.

considerate chick wrote:

keters peter wrote:

No I don't stand corrected. Anyone with a minimum wage job has enough money for food. The problem is financial management.

How about we do the math and see who is correct? Minimum wage is $7.25 per hour, say you work 40 hours per week, then that is 40*$7.25 = $290 per week. Lets say taxes are 10% so that is $290*0.90 = $261 per week. A moderate cost for feeding a family of four is $239 per week. So if you make $261 and groceries cost $239 per week then that leaves you with $22 per week.

So I guess you can feed a family with a minimum wage salary.

BUT WHAT ABOUT ALL THE OTHER NECESSITIES? SHELTER, HEALTH CARE, TRANSPORTATION, CLOTHING, AND SEVERAL OTHERS???

Douchebag, you remain corrected, income inequality is BAD!!!

considerate chick wrote:

keters peter wrote:

No I don't stand corrected. Anyone with a minimum wage job has enough money for food. The problem is financial management.

How about we do the math and see who is correct? Minimum wage is $7.25 per hour, say you work 40 hours per week, then that is 40*$7.25 = $290 per week. Lets say taxes are 10% so that is $290*0.90 = $261 per week. A moderate cost for feeding a family of four is $239 per week. So if you make $261 and groceries cost $239 per week then that leaves you with $22 per week.

So I guess you can feed a family with a minimum wage salary.

BUT WHAT ABOUT ALL THE OTHER NECESSITIES? SHELTER, HEALTH CARE, TRANSPORTATION, CLOTHING, AND SEVERAL OTHERS???

Douchebag, you remain corrected, income inequality is BAD!!!

Don't have four kids for starters. That leaves more time for you to earn more money. It also takes two extra poor people out of the equation since poorness begets poorness.

If you elect to live in a high cost of living area, you do so because there is some benefit beyond your wages. This is true for wealthy and poor alike.

An increase in my income does not come at the expense of a poor person.

A bunch of underemployed losers complaining here. If you have half decent intelligence and work hard, it's easy to get to top 10%. 1% on the hand are only for the truly gifted people.

keters peter wrote:

Captain America wrote:

Try to think. Without any apparent thought processes going on in your head it is not very interesting to 'interact' with you.

In case you are not capable of rational thought try looking up statistics on class mobility in the US over time. Maybe that will help you get started.

The problem here is that you don't understand statistics. They are observations. They are not causal. They are not explanations. So looking at those statistics is meaningless. What I said is true. How much money you have doesn't affect whether or not I can make more money than I currently have.

That's pretty funny coming from you and talking to someone who understands mathematical and statistical concepts at a level that vastly exceeds anything that you could possibly comprehend.

Anyway, like I said, let me know when you can say something that implies rational thought processes.

adam smith wrote:

A bunch of underemployed losers complaining here. If you have half decent intelligence and work hard, it's easy to get to top 10%. 1% on the hand are only for the truly gifted people.

Nice argument!