bernie sanders: in todays world, 81 people have more wealth than 3 billion combined!

[RidonKs]

quite a striking statistic i thought i'd share

dunno if its accurate but sounds in the ballpark plus it was during a campaign speech so presumably its fact checked

[UK2K]

The population of Africa is 1.1 billion.

1,099,999,999 of them are dirt poor and if they disappeared off the face of the earth, nobody would notice. Except the local wildlife.

Add in the poor from China and India, and it isn't that hard.

ISH probably has more wealth than those three places combined.

[fiddy]

sanders has some commie agenda?

[UK2K]

sanders has some commie agenda?

He's an extreme socialist.

[fiddy]

He's an extreme socialist.
Just like Obama? :oldlol: Not a bad thing, we're going back some mixed type of system involving socialism in the long run.

[Myth]

He's an extreme socialist.

He may be a socialist to an extent, but he isn't an "extreme socialist." Nobody in serious American politics fits that label.

[UK2K]

Just like Obama? :oldlol: Not a bad thing, we're going back some mixed type of system involving socialism in the long run.

Well, yeah, the government can't afford to pay for half the citizens of a country to exist in a capitalist economy.

If enough people just say **** it and hang out instead of work, that's the only option. Unless of course we just let them be homeless and fend for themselves (bet the welfare rolls would shrink once that passed huh?).

[sundizz]

People don't feel like this is fundamentally wrong?

That less than 10,000 people basically control a world of 8 billion? It makes no sense that it how the world should operate in the modern era. We have the food, healthcare, etc to support everybody and do some in a reasonable way.

By not supporting wealth redistribution you support homelessness, drug usage, violent crime, and poverty.

[NumberSix]

People don't feel like this is fundamentally wrong?

That less than 10,000 people basically control a world of 8 billion? It makes no sense that it how the world should operate in the modern era. We have the food, healthcare, etc to support everybody and do some in a reasonable way.

By not supporting wealth redistribution you support homelessness, drug usage, violent crime, and poverty.
No we don't.

[RidonKs]

No we don't.
yeah we do

corporate coffers are overflowing with profits, they just have no incentive to invest their capital because the economic system is so fking deranged, it makes more sense to hoard which is precisely what they're doing

job creators :lol

[UK2K]

People don't feel like this is fundamentally wrong?

That less than 10,000 people basically control a world of 8 billion? It makes no sense that it how the world should operate in the modern era. We have the food, healthcare, etc to support everybody and do some in a reasonable way.

By not supporting wealth redistribution you support homelessness, drug usage, violent crime, and poverty.
By supporting wealth distribution, you support laziness, dependency, and mediocrity.

Every homeless person alive in America today had the opportunity, and still has the opportunity, to be exceptional if they are willing to make the sacrifices.

Many arent.

If you wish to live in a socialist country, there are plenty to choose from. I hear they're great places to live.

[NumberSix]

yeah we do

corporate coffers are overflowing with profits, they just have no incentive to invest their capital because the economic system is so fking deranged, it makes more sense to hoard which is precisely what they're doing

job creators :lol
As you can clearly see, western investors are more than willing to invest in other countries that can offer cheaper labour costs. I'm sure Nike and big car manufacturers would love to set up shop in African counties. The problem is, these countries just aren't stable places to do business.

Nobody wants to set up a manufacturing plant in an area that's in a constant state of civil war. Say what you want about China, but you don't have to worry about some group of rebels taking over your factory, blowing it up or slaughtering all the workers.

[RidonKs]

As you can clearly see, western investors are more than willing to invest in other countries that can offer cheaper labour costs. I'm sure Nike and big car manufacturers would love to set up shop in African counties. The problem is, these countries just aren't stable places to do business.

Nobody wants to set up a manufacturing plant in an area that's in a constant state of civil war. Say what you want about China, but you don't have to worry about some group of rebels taking over your factory, blowing it up or slaughtering all the workers.
you're right. it's the workers who have to worry. it's too bad you don't give a shit about them but others do. the way global investment works is a clear race to the bottom. you want placid uninspired downtrodden labour who you can employ under shitty conditions for minimal pay. they don't do this to make a better product or to reach a larger market, they do it strictly to limit costs, at the expense of local industries in the developing world AND undermployed labour in the developed world.

[Akrazotile]

People don't feel like this is fundamentally wrong?

That less than 10,000 people basically control a world of 8 billion? It makes no sense that it how the world should operate in the modern era. We have the food, healthcare, etc to support everybody and do some in a reasonable way.

By not supporting wealth redistribution you support homelessness, drug usage, violent crime, and poverty.


First of all, what makes that wealth yours to distribute? What if someone came along and decided YOU had to give away 70% of your income? You don't need a playstation, you don't need nikes, you don't need a Honda. You can wear Tom's, you can play board games, you can take the bus. I'm guessing you don't do any of these things (except wear Tom's) because when it comes to redistributing wealth, you draw the line comfortably ABOVE your own head, even though you're probably very wealthy in comparison to the poorest people around the world. You have no more right to redistribute someone elses income than I have to redistribute yours. As long as people make their money within the guidelines of the legal system it's not any of your business. The nice thing about capitalism is that if you don't LIKE how much money someone else is accumulating, you can choose not to associate with their brand/product/business. When the state owns everything, you don't get that choice.


Secondly, people make that income for a reason. They provide something of value. They either invented something, or developed a business, risked their own money to make something work etc. Do you want to take away peoples rights to their businesses to? Becuase if you redistribute the wealth, junkies, bums, psychos, and ne'er-do-well's will just give it all back before long by making bad choices, and the money will go right back where it was. You are living in a fairy world.

If you want to make a difference, be wise with your own money. Donate it if you feel that will help. Make smart consumer choices. Mentor at-risk kids. "Knowledge is power." Giving people money without them having any knowledge is worthless. It's lazy, and it's hypocritical because it's never YOUR money that they're getting. You need to acquaint yourself with reality.

These "wealthy socialist" little countries in Europe like Norway and Switzerland can afford to do what they do because they run the white collar aspect of global business and import cheap ass products made in sweatshops so that between cheap products and high taxes, even the low-income guy in the country has a lot. But guess what, if you look at the OTHER countries theyre exploiting, that cheap socialism doesn't come from nowhere. It comes from the backs of OTHERS. Why? Because EVERYONE CANT WIN. Why? Because EVERYONE ISN'T EQUAL. This is something you HAVE to come to grips with if you actually want to address issues from the perspective of reality. Else you're just living in denial. That's the liberal way. Deny the real issue. Draw up a fake one to position yourself as the altruistic hero of it all. I've got all the answers! Just like, take the money of everyone who makes more than I do, and just like, give it away man. Because like, that's the right thing to do. This mentality just demonstrates no understanding of human reality whatsoever. Blustering ignorance.

[RidonKs]

First of all, what makes that wealth yours to distribute?
an equally important question; what about that wealth makes it theirs to keep?


Secondly, people make that income for a reason.
LOL

maybe some of them

plus most of what this thread is talking about has nothing to do with merit based income...

[Akrazotile]

an equally important question; what about that wealth makes it theirs to keep?



If it was obtained legally, then... the basic principles of civilized society. If you make 50 bucks, I can't just walk up and take it or tell you how to spend it. That's pretty much how this society stuff works.

Obviously all societies have a tax code, and in America's case it already serves as a wealth redistribution apparatus far more than the founders of the Constitution intended. We don't need to lean even more heavily on the tax code for the purpose of the illusion of a long term economic fix. We need more knowledge and less people. Period.

[TripleA]

By supporting wealth distribution, you support laziness, dependency, and mediocrity.

Every homeless person alive in America today had the opportunity, and still has the opportunity, to be exceptional if they are willing to make the sacrifices.

Many arent.

If you wish to live in a socialist country, there are plenty to choose from. I hear they're great places to live.

A lot of the homeless have severe mental illness.

[Akrazotile]

A lot of the homeless have severe mental illness.


http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/1316193852_guillotine1.jpg

[ThePhantomCreep]

First of all, what makes that wealth yours to distribute? What if someone came along and decided YOU had to give away 70% of your income? You don't need a playstation, you don't need nikes, you don't need a Honda. You can wear Tom's, you can play board games, you can take the bus. I'm guessing you don't do any of these things (except wear Tom's) because when it comes to redistributing wealth, you draw the line comfortably ABOVE your own head, even though you're probably very wealthy in comparison to the poorest people around the world. You have no more right to redistribute someone elses income than I have to redistribute yours. As long as people make their money within the guidelines of the legal system it's not any of your business. The nice thing about capitalism is that if you don't LIKE how much money someone else is accumulating, you can choose not to associate with their brand/product/business. When the state owns everything, you don't get that choice.


Secondly, people make that income for a reason. They provide something of value. They either invented something, or developed a business, risked their own money to make something work etc. Do you want to take away peoples rights to their businesses to? Becuase if you redistribute the wealth, junkies, bums, psychos, and ne'er-do-well's will just give it all back before long by making bad choices, and the money will go right back where it was. You are living in a fairy world.

If you want to make a difference, be wise with your own money. Donate it if you feel that will help. Make smart consumer choices. Mentor at-risk kids. "Knowledge is power." Giving people money without them having any knowledge is worthless. It's lazy, and it's hypocritical because it's never YOUR money that they're getting. You need to acquaint yourself with reality.

These "wealthy socialist" little countries in Europe like Norway and Switzerland can afford to do what they do because they run the white collar aspect of global business and import cheap ass products made in sweatshops so that between cheap products and high taxes, even the low-income guy in the country has a lot. But guess what, if you look at the OTHER countries theyre exploiting, that cheap socialism doesn't come from nowhere. It comes from the backs of OTHERS. Why? Because EVERYONE CANT WIN. Why? Because EVERYONE ISN'T EQUAL. This is something you HAVE to come to grips with if you actually want to address issues from the perspective of reality. Else you're just living in denial. That's the liberal way. Deny the real issue. Draw up a fake one to position yourself as the altruistic hero of it all. I've got all the answers! Just like, take the money of everyone who makes more than I do, and just like, give it away man. Because like, that's the right thing to do. This mentality just demonstrates no understanding of human reality whatsoever. Blustering ignorance.


The irony of this post is that right-wing shills are some of the biggest advocates of wealth distribution around. They're just too stupid to realize it.

This is wealth distribution:

[RidonKs]

The irony of this post is that right-wing shills are some of the biggest advocates of wealth distribution around. They're just too stupid to realize it.

This is wealth distribution:

https://workerspartynz.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/real-wages-vs-productivity.png

This is wealth distribution:

http://www.artonissues.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/growth-in-income-inequality1.jpg

Dummies.
great post. tho if u could find a smaller graph, that'd be nice.. :)

part of the corporate agenda for the past 30 years has been to equate the company strictly with the company's MANAGEMENT. so if we say "x company released this statement" or "x company made this move", you are by necessity of the language referring to only like 10% of the people who work there. this makes some sense, as every organization requires a spokesman and it wouldn't make sense to empower a front liner with that responsibility. but the point isn't that its nonsensical, its that this equivalency is dangerous because it ignores the voice of the majority.

when in fact, for all we know, the biggest gains in productivity might well be coming from a couple low level employees who happen to stumble upon a better way of doing things.

[Patrick Chewing]

Bernie's 90% Tax Plan will get him assassinated.

[NumberSix]

great post. tho if u could find a smaller graph, that'd be nice.. :)

part of the corporate agenda for the past 30 years has been to equate the company strictly with the company's MANAGEMENT. so if we say "x company released this statement" or "x company made this move", you are by necessity of the language referring to only like 10% of the people who work there. this makes some sense, as every organization requires a spokesman and it wouldn't make sense to empower a front liner with that responsibility. but the point isn't that its nonsensical, its that this equivalency is dangerous because it ignores the voice of the majority.

when in fact, for all we know, the biggest gains in productivity might well be coming from a couple low level employees who happen to stumble upon a better way of doing things.
So your basic belief is that people should not have the freedom to make their own deals? A government agency should monitor all deals (for a fee of course) and decide which deals the people are and aren't allowed to make?

[ThePhantomCreep]

Sorry about the graphs guys, I'll remove them until I find smaller ones.

[RidonKs]

So your basic belief is that people should not have the freedom to make their own deals? A government agency should monitor all deals (for a fee of course) and decide which deals the people are and aren't allowed to make?
no that isn't it but it does sound like just the strawman an idiot such as yourself would love to rebut, so if you like, i can pretend i believe it so you can play in your sandbox with your measly analysis


Bernie's 90% Tax Plan will get him assassinated.
lol presumably, fresh edit there

[NumberSix]

no that isn't it but it does sound like just the strawman an idiot such as yourself would love to rebut, so if you like, i can pretend i believe it so you can play in your sandbox with your measly analysis
Sure it is. You fully believe that if a person says "I'll pay you this much to do this task" and the other person says "I agree to those terms" that the government should decide whether they should have the freedom to be allowed to make that deal.

Is this not what you believe?



Edit: sorry I'm wrong. You actually do believe they should be able to make that deal, under the condition that the person being hired is an illegal alien.

[RidonKs]

no that still isn't it but it does sound like just the strawman an idiot such as yourself would love to rebut, so if you like, i can pretend i believe it so you can play in your sandbox with your measly analysis

[Dbrog]

By supporting wealth distribution, you support laziness, dependency, and mediocrity.

Every homeless person alive in America today had the opportunity, and still has the opportunity, to be exceptional if they are willing to make the sacrifices.

Many arent.

If you wish to live in a socialist country, there are plenty to choose from. I hear they're great places to live.

This is mostly true except only when talking about the lower class. Middle class is getting shafted like never before as seen by the graph phantomcreep posted. The wealth distribution is simply stupid. If your company is making billions of dollars, there's simply no way you can justify paying employees minimum wage (they are one of the main reasons your company is succeeding). I'm not saying the average mcdonalds worker should be making 70k/year, but come on.

[RidonKs]

This is mostly true except only when talking about the lower class. Middle class is getting shafted like never before as seen by the graph phantomcreep posted. The wealth distribution is simply stupid. If your company is making billions of dollars, there's simply no way you can justify paying employees minimum wage (they are one of the main reasons your company is succeeding). I'm not saying the average mcdonalds worker should be making 70k/year, but come on.
to add to this point, the middle class has nothing to do with fast food. fast food workers don't make a middle class income. the people i suspect you're talking about, the folks truly getting shafted out of the fruits of their own labour, are the ones working at for Cisqo and Lockheed Martin at $60k a year

[macmac]

Bernie's 90% Tax Plan will get him assassinated.

There's other ways to silence a candidate than pure assassination. The complete lack of TV time and coverage of Ron Paul in the past few elections, for example.

[Akrazotile]

to add to this point, the middle class has nothing to do with fast food. fast food workers don't make a middle class income. the people i suspect you're talking about, the folks truly getting shafted out of the fruits of their own labour, are the ones working at for Cisqo and Lockheed Martin at $60k a year


Uhh, so why dont they quit?

[RidonKs]

Uhh, so why dont they quit?
because the pay scale isn't determined by the company, its determined by the industry? chances are they couldn't make much more going to a competitor.


but you're changing the conversation by suggesting it's on the employee to find the better opportunity. certainly it's up to every individual to improve his situation as best as possible... i'm not sure hitler or gandhi would disagree with that.

i'm talking about something different. im suggesting that they shouldn't even have to ASK for bonuses when the company is improving productivity and increasing market share. it should be obvious to anybody with a brain that its possible, not even necessarily unlikely, for a technician to be more valuable to a company than a cfo. yet pay grades will never reflect that.

now a different conversation would be to ponder whether salaries should be strictly tied to annual restructuring based on quarterly reports... or whether there should be room to maneuver in terms of rewarding good work. i don't think that's exactly an open and shut case. it largely depends on where you feel people draw their motivation from. i suspect we're closer on this issue than not.

but then wait, i forgot about your conversation stopper!

"the guy who owns the business can do whatever he wants since he owns the business so he can do whatever he wants since he owns the business"

:milton

property rights are not a law of nature starface.

[Droid101]

derp
Pretty funny coming from a 30+ year old dude who still mooches off his parents. :lol

[Akrazotile]

Pretty funny coming from a 30+ year old dude who still mooches off his parents. :lol


Youre lucky Ive outgrown exchanging personal attacks on the internet, otherwise Id send a real zinger back at ya.

[Akrazotile]

Ridonks, come on in. Have a seat.





because the pay scale isn't determined by the company, its determined by the industry? chances are they couldn't make much more going to a competitor.


but you're changing the conversation by suggesting it's on the employee to find the better opportunity. certainly it's up to every individual to improve his situation as best as possible... i'm not sure hitler or gandhi would disagree with that.

i'm talking about something different. im suggesting that they shouldn't even have to ASK for bonuses when the company is improving productivity and increasing market share. it should be obvious to anybody with a brain that its possible, not even necessarily unlikely, for a technician to be more valuable to a company than a cfo. yet pay grades will never reflect that.

now a different conversation would be to ponder whether salaries should be strictly tied to annual restructuring based on quarterly reports... or whether there should be room to maneuver in terms of rewarding good work. i don't think that's exactly an open and shut case. it largely depends on where you feel people draw their motivation from. i suspect we're closer on this issue than not.

but then wait, i forgot about your conversation stopper!

"the guy who owns the business can do whatever he wants since he owns the business so he can do whatever he wants since he owns the business"

:milton

property rights are not a law of nature starface.



It would be better if you had posted nothing at all.

Wtf is this shit?? I cant read this ****ing shit. Do you know what's happening to me out there when I justify these posts with a rebuttal? Jeff from Insidehoops told me to shove your post up my ass. Do you know what its like to be told to have a post shoved up your ass?

You know why my posts are so successful? I'm posting about incisive social truths, blunts, forties, and bitches.

Youre posting about homosexuals and vicodin.

Now either change the post so its not as tedious and grandiloquent, or its not coming out.


Get the **** out of my office.

[NumberSix]

im suggesting that they shouldn't even have to ASK for bonuses when the company is improving productivity and increasing market share. it should be obvious to anybody with a brain that its possible, not even necessarily unlikely, for a technician to be more valuable to a company than a cfo. yet pay grades will never reflect that.
So, if business goes down, it would be perfectly fine to tell the workers "you're getting less money" then, right? :confusedshrug:

[RidonKs]

Ridonks, come on in. Have a seat.








It would be better if you had posted nothing at all.

Wtf is this shit?? I cant read this ****ing shit. Do you know what's happening to me out there when I justify these posts with a rebuttal? Jeff from Insidehoops told me to shove your post up my ass. Do you know what its like to be told to have a post shoved up your ass?

You know why my posts are so successful? I'm posting about incisive social truths, blunts, forties, and bitches.

Youre posting about homosexuals and vicodin.

Now either change the post so its not as tedious and grandiloquent, or its not coming out.


Get the **** out of my office.
now THATS a conversation stopper

[RidonKs]

Uhh, so why dont they quit?
they don't quit because they're worried they won't be able to find a different job that pays any better so why bother shit never changes

[Akrazotile]

they don't quit because they're worried they won't be able to find a different job that pays any better so why bother shit never changes


Yeah. And they got that job in the first place because someone risked a bunch of their own money - in some cases people sell everything they own for startup capital - or put in tons of sleepless hours, because that person wanted to get rich. And if they hadnt done that, the guy who goes in 9-5 and sits in front of a screen for 60k a year would be living on a farm counting his yearly earnings in eggs and cattle heads.


Our quality of life is raised because some people take risks or put in tons of work to get ahead. If everyone makes the same money, nobody will take that risk and we will go nowhere.

If you make 60k a year, thats the salary at which you are replaceable. Others will do that work for 60k or your salary would be higher. So either be happy with it, of figure tohow to make yourself more valuable either in your own workplace or in a supplemental income venture. Either way, demanding to make as much as your boss just bc you show up is ****ING RETARDED.

[ThePhantomCreep]

Yeah. And they got that job in the first place because someone risked a bunch of their own money - in some cases people sell everything they own for startup capital - or put in tons of sleepless hours, because that person wanted to get rich. And if they hadnt done that, the guy who goes in 9-5 and sits in front of a screen for 60k a year would be living on a farm counting his yearly earnings in eggs and cattle heads.


Our quality of life is raised because some people take risks or put in tons of work to get ahead. If everyone makes the same money, nobody will take that risk and we will go nowhere.

If you make 60k a year, thats the salary at which you are replaceable. Others will do that work for 60k or your salary would be higher. So either be happy with it, of figure tohow to make yourself more valuable either in your own workplace or in a supplemental income venture. Either way, demanding to make as much as your boss just bc you show up is ****ING RETARDED.


You're an expert in polishing the knobs of "teh job creators".

Limbaugh has taught you well.

[KyrieTheFuture]

By supporting wealth distribution, you support laziness, dependency, and mediocrity.

Every homeless person alive in America today had the opportunity, and still has the opportunity, to be exceptional if they are willing to make the sacrifices.

Many arent.

If you wish to live in a socialist country, there are plenty to choose from. I hear they're great places to live.
:biggums: :biggums: :biggums:

[Dbrog]

to add to this point, the middle class has nothing to do with fast food. fast food workers don't make a middle class income. the people i suspect you're talking about, the folks truly getting shafted out of the fruits of their own labour, are the ones working at for Cisqo and Lockheed Martin at $60k a year

Correct. Well placed adding this.

[RidonKs]

And if they hadnt done that, the guy who goes in 9-5 and sits in front of a screen for 60k a year would be living on a farm counting his yearly earnings in eggs and cattle heads.
but its reciprocal!

the guy who decided to risk all his money, or the more common fella who just happened to have access to a lot of money in one way or another... would never have been able to bring the business to fruition without employees.

so the fact that somebody needs to see a good investment opportunity, somebody else needs to figure out a business plan, somebody else needs to find capital, somebody else needs to do personnel for hiring, somebody else needs to manage the marketing campaign, somebody else needs to do administration, somebody else needs to speak up when nobody else will, somebody else needs to rally the troops around the mission, somebody else somebody else somebody else... OR the same person does all that shit.

you're saying only the founding is important. the founder gets 100% decision making power over everything, at least so long as he wants.

i'm saying that at worst founding a company and making it successful can be two very different things. i'm saying that all of the tasks i listed above are equally important, compensation should reflect that, and the guy who's name on the building doesn't necessarily say wtf is up wit it.

just as often as the founder was the driving engine behind a firm that rose to the top throughout his life, there's a founder who d!cks around for a few years before he grows board and sells it to a consultancy which hires new management that fires everybody and the company inches forward until 25 years later its a huge success in very different markets due to a variety of good work and fortunate circumstance... except whoever's now running it had nothing to do with its origin. hmmmmm

oops sorry i hope that's not too complicated or anything

http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140503060058/walkingdead/images/e/e6/Do_you_understand.gif

[RidonKs]

If you make 60k a year, thats the salary at which you are replaceable. Others will do that work for 60k or your salary would be higher.
that's according to classical economics. and brilliant though that observation may be (i can say that because you didn't make it first), that mold does not fit the world we live in today. salaries are determined through more than just market mechanisms, which can actually work both ways i should add. i'm also not strictly talking about government intervention here either, though that certainly plays its part.

[Dbrog]

If you make 60k a year, thats the salary at which you are replaceable. Others will do that work for 60k or your salary would be higher. So either be happy with it, of figure tohow to make yourself more valuable either in your own workplace or in a supplemental income venture. Either way, demanding to make as much as your boss just bc you show up is ****ING RETARDED.

Chances are they are mostly satisfied with that wage but again satisfaction is not the point. Why is it that many CEOs RAISE their own salary and cut jobs from their business when they are in the red or do worse than previous years? This literally makes no sense and is horrible management. You can say, "ok, well it's their company they can do what they want. You could do this too if you had your own company," but the point remains. How is this fair to the workers? In the same sense, if you company has MASSIVE profits one year, how does it make sense that your employees (who helped you achieve this) don't share in the pot?

[Akrazotile]

Chances are they are mostly satisfied with that wage but again satisfaction is not the point. Why is it that many CEOs RAISE their own salary and cut jobs from their business when they are in the red or do worse than previous years? This literally makes no sense and is horrible management. You can say, "ok, well it's their company they can do what they want. You could do this too if you had your own company," but the point remains. How is this fair to the workers? In the same sense, if you company has MASSIVE profits one year, how does it make sense that your employees (who helped you achieve this) don't share in the pot?


Many of them do. Virtually any level worker can obtain a stake in the company once theyve been there long enough. When the company does well, that bodes well for their 401k, their stock options etc. Also if a company is doing well it usually expands, which leads to promotions. For those who arent qualified for promotions, there may be overtime hours available which entails higher wages.

Your logic seems to be that if a company has been clawing its way up from the ground for 7-8 years and finally turns a profit, the guy who was hired nine months ago to take customer service phone calls for 50k a year should suddenly be given 65k a year! Regardless of the merit of his work personally, his value to the business, his intent to stay there.

It doesnt work that way :facepalm


If you want an equal society, you have to have one guy who makes shoes and one guy bake bread and one guy build houses etc. and everyone trades. If you want to live in a society where goods are mass produced and readily available, you have to accept income inequality. If WORKERS dont like the share theyre getting, then theyll strike, riot, or quit. What benefit does it serve you in your life to be their Internet Robinhood? Seriously. You think youre going to surmount the complex economic dynamics of REALITY by crying like phantomcreep behind a keyboard? :cry: its not fair, everythings so unfair, its not fairrrr :cry: Yeah, real change-bringer he is.

Seriously. Worry about your own situation and if you dont like it, then strike, riot, or quit. But youre sitting on the internet playing imaginary robin hood man. You have too much time on your hands and youre dreaming up these revolutionary ideals. You know who else did that? Marx, Trotsky, and Lenin. They even managed to put it into practice. Guess what? BIG FAILURE. Oops!

Seriously. Do yourself a favor and worry about yourself. Let the chips fall where they may.

[NumberSix]

Chances are they are mostly satisfied with that wage but again satisfaction is not the point. Why is it that many CEOs RAISE their own salary and cut jobs from their business when they are in the red or do worse than previous years? This literally makes no sense and is horrible management. You can say, "ok, well it's their company they can do what they want. You could do this too if you had your own company," but the point remains. How is this fair to the workers? In the same sense, if you company has MASSIVE profits one year, how does it make sense that your employees (who helped you achieve this) don't share in the pot?
What would you do if you owned a business? If you make a nice profit, what would you do with it? Just give it away? How would you ever expand your business?

Say you have a sandwich shop that's doing really well. If you just give all your profits to your employees, how would you ever build another sandwich shop?

More sandwich shops = more jobs.

[GimmeThat]

So I was trying to tell people that instead of utilizing government institutions like Freddie and Frannie mac.

The most stable way to make housing affordable would be to focus on the import/export deficit.

I was called drunk.

[NumberSix]

So I was trying to tell people that instead of utilizing government institutions like Freddie and Frannie mac.

The most stable way to make housing affordable would be to focus on the import/export deficit.

I was called drunk.
Well the problem is that the United States has a lot of lopsided trade deals. For instance, Chinese companies can export their products to the American market tax free. That's a 1 way deal. American products have have around a 40% tax on the Chinese market. Why would the United States continue such a stupid deal?

[GimmeThat]

Well the problem is that the United States has a lot of lopsided trade deals. For instance, Chinese companies can export their products to the American market tax free. That's a 1 way deal. American products have have around a 40% tax on the Chinese market. Why would the United States continue such a stupid deal?

If the Americans who wouldn't listen to the administrations were to be classified as Chinese.

Then goods relatives to one another in the market. Most likely determine ideas that are being cycled.


because of being afraid of purchasing foreign goods forever, might just end up being the reason as to why they just might.

I also don't have much, if any, extensive knowledge regards to foreign trade, and taxes.

[RidonKs]

Seriously. Do yourself a favor and worry about yourself. Let the chips fall where they may.
everybody cares about themselves. it is impossible not to.

we're not different because we don't care about ourselves.

you're different because you don't care about anybody else.

:eek:

[Akrazotile]

everybody cares about themselves. it is impossible not to.

we're not different because we don't care about ourselves.

you're different because you don't care about anybody else.

:eek:


Wrong.

I care about kids that are too young to be able to prevent abuse and neglect at the hands of adults. I care about natural ecosystems and wildlife completely at the mercy of human exploitation. I care about people who've lost loved ones far too early. I care about people who NEED help, not perfectly capable people who just want MORE help so they can afford higher end name brands.

I dont care that an average person is crying because they make an average salary. I dont care that an emo living in his parents suburban home is too consumed with why girls (or guys) wont talk to him to go out and get some life experience (thats not directed at you, but internet liberals in general). I dont care that some dweebs on the web are trying to play robin hood for a blue collar establishment that doesnt seem to be asking for their help in the first place. I dont care about awkward betas who refuse to get some hobbies and build some confidence and pursue their own shit, and instead seek inclusion in the "lets cry 24/7 about everything" social group.


I have discretion with my sympathy. You will give it to anyone who asks for it, whether its reasonable or not. You have a fear of telling people no. I dont.

[RidonKs]

i've told people no for a living. the exact people we're talking about.


the average person ISN'T crying. that's because life is good enough. tv's refrigerators grocery stores food stamps even. sure. but it's only good enough because their entire lives are driven by consumption, as the "masters of mankind" (not my phrase, in fact Adam Smith's) have entirely intended. that is my hypothesis and i accept you consider it conspiratorial. nevertheless, the system works because the majority of people are able to live comfortable lives. meanwhile behind their backs, practically every decision about the direction the country should go has already been made.

those decisions don't even enter most people's lives. that is a problem.


and as for online robin hood, you can **** right off since you're right here doing the exact same thing. though i wonder if you are anywhere else. at least i certainly hope so.

the glory of text is that the emphasis is on the reader

[RidonKs]

Why do people care if a billionaire has some of their money taken away and dispersed to poor people? It's not going to affect you, unless you get extra money.
they're being hard and rugged and tough because that's the role they feel they play in society; the enforcer of what is right and what is right is that whatever i can get anybody else should be able to get and nobody should be allowed to stop them. these people have always existed.

might makes right.

[Akrazotile]

Why do people care if a billionaire has some of their money taken away and dispersed to poor people? It's not going to affect you, unless you get extra money.


Because some people have principles and foresight not to want to set the kind of precedent where a government can give and take from whomever they please without sensible justification.

Your argument is like the "who cares about spying, youre not a criminal under investigation so what does it matturr?"

"Who cares if someone breaks into Ridonks home and takes his money, it aint my home."

People care because they look at the big picture of what principles society is supposed to be structured upon. If people have money, theyre free to give it. Its their choice, not yours and not Barry's.


It turns out that the old Bushism about “compassionate conservatism” may not be a myth after all. In a new analysis of Internal Revenue Service tax records, the Chronicle of Philanthropy on Monday ranked U.S. cities and states by how much money their residents give to charity. The bottom line? People in red states are more generous with their green.

http://www.ibtimes.com/charitable-giving-state-are-republicans-more-generous-democrats-or-just-more-religious-1700059



Most liberals dont really want to help others. They resent their own place in society and resent their own income, and THATS their impetus for wanting to turn the establishment upside down. Theyre not poor and they dont help the poor. They want more of the pie for themselves, and they HIDE behind phony ideology and emotional manipulation to get others to cough up some more without having to put down anythibg themselves.

The reason I make low income and Im still conservative? Because I'm CONFIDENT I'll eventually get where I want to be, and when I do, I want to be able to give MY money to those whom I believe need it most, not whom the government tells me to based on some backdoor deals and vote-getting handout strategies.

Liberals are the people who KNOW theyre average and KNOW theyll never be anything more, and have to resort to the "gimme gimme gimme" game as their ONLY means of improving their lot ever.

And with that, Im gonna walk my own walk about spending some time off the net and enjoying some unplugged time, and I am outta here for the weekend. Peace boys!

[Take Your Lumps]

The more this election season goes on, the more I think that Trump vs. Sanders is a conversation this country needs to have.

**** it. Let's do it.

[Norcaliblunt]

I think part of the problem is policy plus this general attitude of treating and acting like small business and multinational corporations are the same thing.

[RidonKs]

The more this election season goes on, the more I think that Trump vs. Sanders is a conversation this country needs to have.

**** it. Let's do it.
:lol :cheers: :banana:

[shlver]

People don't feel like this is fundamentally wrong?

That less than 10,000 people basically control a world of 8 billion? It makes no sense that it how the world should operate in the modern era. We have the food, healthcare, etc to support everybody and do some in a reasonable way.

By not supporting wealth redistribution you support homelessness, drug usage, violent crime, and poverty.
That's nonsense. In rich countries, there is a possibility that redistribution may change things for the better but it is tougher to predict the negative outcomes of said redistribution. Will money and handouts given to poor people negatively affect their work ethic? Will redistribution of wealth cause a decrease in investment and slow down economic growth? These are necessary questions(there are more) that need to be discussed without the idea that people are bad just by the virtue of being rich. Without dispelling this mentality, any attempt at discourse will be met with the response of "it's just not fair."

[RidonKs]

That's nonsense. In rich countries, there is a possibility that redistribution may change things for the better but it is tougher to predict the negative outcomes of said redistribution. Will money and handouts given to poor people negatively affect their work ethic? Will redistribution of wealth cause a decrease in investment and slow down economic growth? These are necessary questions(there are more) that need to be discussed without the idea that people are bad just by the virtue of being rich. Without dispelling this mentality, any attempt at discourse will be met with the response of "it's just not fair."
oooh i'm glad u responded, competence is always a welcome sight

why was randy such a d!ck to u anyway? that guy was such a d!ck

[Nanners]

Why is it only called wealth redistribution when wealth is being transferred to the poor?

During the past 50 years in this country there has been massive wealth redistribution in the USA, from the middle and lower classes to the upper classes. This redistribution has been driven by govt policies (things like NAFTA and the reagan and gw bush tax cuts).

I never will understand how conservatives can bitch and moan about the government helping the poor, but stay completely silent when the government hands over their money to a small handful of ultra rich.

[NumberSix]

Why do people care if a billionaire has some of their money taken away and dispersed to poor people? It's not going to affect you, unless you get extra money.
Because some people have principles. I know as a lefty, you can't understand that because the definitive characteristic of the left is the lack of principles.

Why do people care if some minimum wage single mother has some of her money taken away and dispersed to rich people. It's not going to affect you.

Now that sounds like a horrific thing to say, right? But it doesn't sound horrific to you due to you having principles, because you honestly probably don't. You don't judge right and wrong by actions. You judge right and wrong by which people are involved.

You have a warped idea of morality based on your perceived notion of "classes" of people. You have certain standards for some people (rich people, whites, straights, Christians, etc...) and opposite standards for others (poor people, blacks, gays, Muslims, etc...).

In your mind, there are "victim" classes and "oppressor" classes. This false sense of reality is what makes people like you care about some kinds of people and less about others. This in turn allows you to lack a belief of equal rights for every person. You have different moral standards for different people.

Now, I'm sure you believe that it's actually YOU who is the one that believes in equal rights. You probably find it utterly perplexing that someone suggest it's YOU who values people differently. A good example of this kind of thinking would be the "black lives matters" mindset. People that have so convinced themselves that black lives aren't valued that they are completely eluded by the irony that when it comes to people being killed, it's ONLY the black ones who seem to be worthy of any attention or outrage.

This is why identity politics is poison. It only has 1 result. Different standards for different people.

[ALBballer]

Why is it only called wealth redistribution when wealth is being transferred to the poor?

During the past 50 years in this country there has been massive wealth redistribution in the USA, from the middle and lower classes to the upper classes. This redistribution has been driven by govt policies (things like NAFTA and the reagan and gw bush tax cuts).

I never will understand how conservatives can bitch and moan about the government helping the poor, but stay completely silent when the government hands over their money to a small handful of ultra rich.

When wealth transfers to the upper class through stuff like tax subsidies, government contracts and other subsidies it's called "job creation."

[Dbrog]

If you want an equal society, you have to have one guy who makes shoes and one guy bake bread and one guy build houses etc. and everyone trades. If you want to live in a society where goods are mass produced and readily available, you have to accept income inequality. If WORKERS dont like the share theyre getting, then theyll strike, riot, or quit. What benefit does it serve you in your life to be their Internet Robinhood? Seriously. You think youre going to surmount the complex economic dynamics of REALITY by crying like phantomcreep behind a keyboard? :cry: its not fair, everythings so unfair, its not fairrrr :cry: Yeah, real change-bringer he is.

Seriously. Worry about your own situation and if you dont like it, then strike, riot, or quit. But youre sitting on the internet playing imaginary robin hood man. You have too much time on your hands and youre dreaming up these revolutionary ideals. You know who else did that? Marx, Trotsky, and Lenin. They even managed to put it into practice. Guess what? BIG FAILURE. Oops!

Seriously. Do yourself a favor and worry about yourself. Let the chips fall where they may.

You are inferring a lot from my post. I don't give a shit about these issues because I gave up hope long ago. The average CEO makes 300x annually more than the average worker. You really think striking and rioting would change that? Keep dreaming. I'm fine in my current situation and am realistic about all the times that I had to change it.

At least numbersix posted something useful. Then again, he fails to mention that almost all CEOs end up stockpiling this money instead of expanding as much as they could and creating massive amounts of jobs. There are a few great documentaries on this subject. I forget their name though. I'm sure you could google it if you were really interested.

[UK2K]

You are inferring a lot from my post. I don't give a shit about these issues because I gave up hope long ago. The average CEO makes 300x annually more than the average worker. You really think striking and rioting would change that? Keep dreaming. I'm fine in my current situation and am realistic about all the times that I had to change it.

At least numbersix posted something useful. Then again, he fails to mention that almost all CEOs end up stockpiling this money instead of expanding as much as they could and creating massive amounts of jobs. There are a few great documentaries on this subject. I forget their name though. I'm sure you could google it if you were really interested.
In your opinion, what is a massive amount?

I feel like the CEOs of Walmart, McDonald's, Subway, etc have created quite a few jobs.

Perhaps you could create more?

Good luck starting a business with this government though.

That's the problem. Too much government. It's almost impossible for anybody to start a business anymore. Nobody wants to deal with the bullshit that comes with it.

[Dbrog]

In your opinion, what is a massive amount?

I feel like the CEOs of Walmart, McDonald's, Subway, etc have created quite a few jobs.

Perhaps you could create more?

Good luck starting a business with this government though.

That's the problem. Too much government. It's almost impossible for anybody to start a business anymore. Nobody wants to deal with the bullshit that comes with it.

Those companies are GREAT examples of the BS I'm talking about. Are they creating jobs? Yes! That's great right?! No not really....since they pay them minimum wage while at the same time creating a new store and turning even more massive profits which their employees never see. At least when Bill Miller's turns big profits, they are paying their employees like $3 over minimum wage. Then again, this still isn't talking about middle class America but it's where the conversation went.

As for me creating jobs, I would love to create well paying jobs where my employees are happy and love working at my company. I forget the CEO but there was a study that came out saying people are generally real happy at 75k/salary so he went ahead and took a pay cut and pony'ed up the money for his employees (this wasn't an entry level job btw). Happy company = better production = everyone wins. Unfortunately I don't have the money to start a company like this...nor the business sense.

[Nanners]

The true job creators are american middle class consumers, not CEOs or shareholders.

ford, general motors, apple, microsoft, comcast... most large american corporations rely on middle class consumers. if the middle class has no disposable income, these companies and the jobs they provide disappear.

[Jailblazers7]

In your opinion, what is a massive amount?

I feel like the CEOs of Walmart, McDonald's, Subway, etc have created quite a few jobs.

Perhaps you could create more?

Good luck starting a business with this government though.

That's the problem. Too much government. It's almost impossible for anybody to start a business anymore. Nobody wants to deal with the bullshit that comes with it.

Yeah, there is a real lack of businesses being started in tech right now :lol

[RidonKs]

The true job creators are american middle class consumers, not CEOs or shareholders.

ford, general motors, apple, microsoft, comcast... most large american corporations rely on middle class consumers. if the middle class has no disposable income, these companies and the jobs they provide disappear.
they won't though

there are incredibly rich foreign markets that are becoming increasingly penetrable for the major brands in the world... they can easily sustain themselves on demand from the top 10-15% of the world over, with each country supplying its own power structure to support the status quo as the elites belch on the fat. this is why 'globalization' is so important. but that words been skewed so you could call it 'internationalism', which goes back to the first trade unions that called themselves internationals.

it will take tremendous international solidarity to reverse trends of wealth concentration. the biggest step is figuring out how we can mutually support one another from a distance, more meaningfully than token gestures like $10 here or there and signing petitions in your email cuz that shit is pretty weak.

we have an incredible access to one another like no other generation of human beings have ever had... we can communicate instantaneously over long distances. mostly everybody in the world has a cell phone, except apparently north koreans and cubans and ethiopians... interesting trifecta there. but the point is even the most impoverished african countries have put cell phones into 70-90% of their citizens, and that number is only getting higher.

there is plenty of reason to be optimistic over the long term. it's going to take a lot of hard work, cooperation, and creativity though. there is a good gramsci quote that we should have pessimism of the intellect (skepticism) and optimism of the will (conviction)... i'm feelin that

[UK2K]

Yeah, there is a real lack of businesses being started in tech right now :lol
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/05/05/u-s-businesses-are-being-destroyed-faster-than-theyre-being-created


years of the study -- 2009, 2010 and 2011 -- businesses were collapsing faster than they were being formed, a first. Overall, new businesses creation (measured as the share of all businesses less than one year old) declined by about half from 1978 to 2011.

Shhhhhh

[ThePhantomCreep]

Except thats a crock of horse shit. You wont be able to find any sort of reputable sources that say there has been any intentional redistribution or that NAFTA had a negative impact. The top 10% has grown faster than the rest in income, but the bottom 90% has still grown considerably.

And how can lowering taxes be redistribution? I mean, do you not understand what redistribution is? You cant redistribute wealth by taking less money away from people.

Please look into what youre talking about so we dont have more ignorant voters.

Since the turn of the century, the median household income has fallen by 6.6 percent, from*$55,030*in 2000 to*$51,371*in 2012. Thirty-five states have seen a statistically significant decrease in their median household income, the new Census figures show.- Sep 19, 2013

[RidonKs]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/05/05/u-s-businesses-are-being-destroyed-faster-than-theyre-being-created


years of the study -- 2009, 2010 and 2011 -- businesses were collapsing faster than they were being formed, a first. Overall, new businesses creation (measured as the share of all businesses less than one year old) declined by about half from 1978 to 2011.

Shhhhhh
but that "declined by half" statistic is a problem for which both parties are equally responsible, no? it can't be a brand new problem. i certainly don't beliee it is. you had 20 years of republicans in office and 16 of democrats. though the real egregious reasons for this actually began 5-10 years earlier than 1978, with richard nixon dismantling the bretton woods system and moving to a system of fluctuating currencies that NOBODY understands, not me, not krugman, not dresta, not limbaugh, not any director of the imf of world bank, not any finance minister or central bank administrator in any country at any time in all of history... has EVER understood currencies, to the extent that nobody has ever even been able to make modest predictions. that was the case before the standard was dropped,

the clip of nixon announcing this decision (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFVlt-DhTII)

[QUOTE=crooked d!ck]The third indispensable element in building the new prosperity is closely related to creating new jobs and halting inflation. We must protect the position of the American dollar as a pillar of monetary stability around the world.

In the past 7 years, there has been an average of one international monetary crisis every year. Now who gains from these crises? Not the workingman; not the investor; not the real producers of wealth. The gainers are the international money speculators. Because they thrive on crises, they help to create them.

In recent weeks, the speculators have been waging an all-out war on the American dollar. The strength of a nation

[KyrieTheFuture]

In your opinion, what is a massive amount?

I feel like the CEOs of Walmart, McDonald's, Subway, etc have created quite a few jobs.

Perhaps you could create more?

Good luck starting a business with this government though.

That's the problem. Too much government. It's almost impossible for anybody to start a business anymore. Nobody wants to deal with the bullshit that comes with it.
I'm just wondering how you could possibly list companies that are famous for destroying local businesses and companies that are firing their employees in order to automate their franchises as "job creators". Apple creates a shit ton of jobs, they just happen to be for anyone who isn't american.

[thefatmiral]

If you want socialism just move to a commune. Why waste your time trying force everyone to agree with your views.

[RidonKs]

If you want socialism just move to a commune. Why waste your time trying force everyone to agree with your views.
why do you want to reject the intellectual free market? the free exchange of ideas between willing participants who make rational proposals in their self-interest? subsequently others make counter proposals so that the best idea emerges as a synthesis of the two?

[NumberSix]

why do you want to reject the intellectual free market? the free exchange of ideas between willing participants who make rational proposals in their self-interest? subsequently others make counter proposals so that the best idea emerges as a synthesis of the two?
Of course ideas should be allowed to be freely discussed. You can freely make an argument as to why you think slavery is a good thing. However, you should never be able to actually vote such a thing into practice.

[RidonKs]

Of course ideas should be allowed to be freely discussed. You can freely make an argument as to why you think slavery is a good thing. However, you should never be able to actually vote such a thing into practice.
not according to the constitution....... well the constitution as interpreted through originalism

[shlver]

Why is it only called wealth redistribution when wealth is being transferred to the poor?

During the past 50 years in this country there has been massive wealth redistribution in the USA, from the middle and lower classes to the upper classes. This redistribution has been driven by govt policies (things like NAFTA and the reagan and gw bush tax cuts).

I never will understand how conservatives can bitch and moan about the government helping the poor, but stay completely silent when the government hands over their money to a small handful of ultra rich.
Supply side economics did create jobs, not in the US but the wealth did trickle down to people who were not exactly prospering in China and Mexico. Unless you're being completely USA-centric, I'm not sure how you can say that's a negative thing. One thing is for sure, monetary aid given to poor countries usually do not get to their intended targets but rather gets lost in corrupt bureaucracies. Just like supply side economics and its policies had unintended outcomes, an experiment in demand side economics could yield the same.

[NumberSix]

...
Free trade is the best possible policy. What people like yourself don't seem to understand though, is it's not free trade it it's only a one way street.

No sane business person would agree to a deal where you get to sell your products in my store free of charge but I have to pay you massive fees to put my products in your store. That's not free trade.

[RidonKs]

Free trade is the best possible policy. What people like yourself don't seem to understand though, is it's not free trade it it's only a one way street.

No sane business person would agree to a deal where you get to sell your products in my store free of charge but I have to pay you massive fees to put my products in your store. That's not free trade.
free trade when implemented in the real world DOES NOT match up with free trade in your imagination... or anybody else's imagination for that matter. though your hypothetical is particularly simple.

[UK2K]

I'm just wondering how you could possibly list companies that are famous for destroying local businesses and companies that are firing their employees in order to automate their franchises as "job creators". Apple creates a shit ton of jobs, they just happen to be for anyone who isn't american.
The guy tried to comment that businesses who made profits kept it all and didn't use the profits to expand.

I pointed out those companies have expanded quite a bit.

[RidonKs]

The guy tried to comment that businesses who made profits kept it all and didn't use the profits to expand.

I pointed out those companies have expanded quite a bit.
but not relative to how much they haven't reinvested, which is what matters. if i say bill cosby gave $1 million to charity, you might call him generous with his money. if i said bill cosby didn't give $250 million to charity, you might take back that statement.

[shlver]

oooh i'm glad u responded, competence is always a welcome sight

why was randy such a d!ck to u anyway? that guy was such a d!ck
A lot of people on ISH didn't like me. :oldlol:

[shlver]

Supply side economics did create jobs, not in the US but the wealth did trickle down to people who were not exactly prospering in China and Mexico. Unless you're being completely USA-centric, I'm not sure how you can say that's a negative thing. One thing is for sure, monetary aid given to poor countries usually do not get to their intended targets but rather gets lost in corrupt bureaucracies. Just like supply side economics and its policies had unintended outcomes, an experiment in demand side economics could yield the same.
To further expand, demand side economics only temporarily boosts the economy by the amount people need to meet their demand. It emphasizes consumerism and is not sound for long term economic growth. I believe a culture of long term planning, investment, and saving is much more sound than a culture based on want and need.

[ThePhantomCreep]

6

We were talking about since 50 years ago kid, and youre comparing during a bubble to right after a recession.

The middle class WAS doing well 50 years ago. That only underscores how poorly it's doing in 2015, since the "Reagan Revolution", actually.

Check the wealth gap since 1980, it's a disaster.

[Jailblazers7]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/05/05/u-s-businesses-are-being-destroyed-faster-than-theyre-being-created


years of the study -- 2009, 2010 and 2011 -- businesses were collapsing faster than they were being formed, a first. Overall, new businesses creation (measured as the share of all businesses less than one year old) declined by about half from 1978 to 2011.

Shhhhhh

Yeah, firms disolving vs. firms one year old having a negative relationship in those years had nothing to do with the fact that we were in the worst depression since the 30s. Just because you can't read a chart with context doesn't mean the government is evil. It just means that you're an idiot.

[Jailblazers7]

Btw, the fact that median household income isn't declining right now is a positive sign based on simple arithmetic. Baby boomers are retiring, who are at the end of their wage/salary growth lifecycle. Millennials are just entering the workforce at the beginning of the wage/salary growth lifecycle. High earners are leaving the workforce and low earners are entering the workforce. Guarantee that median household income sees impressive growth over the next 20 years.

[RidonKs]

Btw, the fact that median household income isn't declining right now is a positive sign based on simple arithmetic. Baby boomers are retiring, who are at the end of their wage/salary growth lifecycle. Millennials are just entering the workforce at the beginning of the wage/salary growth lifecycle. High earners are leaving the workforce and low earners are entering the workforce. Guarantee that median household income sees impressive growth over the next 20 years.
is it a guarantee that people will be able to retire though? besides the possibility of an increase in the retirement age, which i'm starting to feel is an inevitability... what about older people staying on longer to save in the crunchtime economy? i'm only hypopolatin here but as an example, my sister is having a hell of a time working her way up the teaching totem pole because all the senior school board staff are refusing to retire. for a lot of reasons i guess though i dunno what they might be

what u say does make sense based on demographics tho

http://www.indexmundi.com/graphs/population-pyramids/united-states-population-pyramid-2014.gif

[Take Your Lumps]

Since the 1970s, one of the greatest tricks the modern GOP has played on people is convincing generations of white Americans that they're middle class rather than working class.

[RidonKs]

To further expand, demand side economics only temporarily boosts the economy by the amount people need to meet their demand. It emphasizes consumerism and is not sound for long term economic growth. I believe a culture of long term planning, investment, and saving is much more sound than a culture based on want and need.
can u elaborate more?

[Derka]

Just like Obama? :oldlol: Not a bad thing, we're going back some mixed type of system involving socialism in the long run.
Obama's not even in Bernie's stratosphere.