Very disturbing charts on the wealth imbalance in USA

[joe]

The problem is NOT capitalism. The problem is the deterioration of capitalism in our country, being replaced with socialist and tyrannical rule. The federal reserve is not an instrument of capitalism. The heavy regulation on our businesses is not an instrument of capitalism.

If you don't know what I'm talking about in that last paragraph, yet you think the problem is capitalism.. you need to do more research before you become part of the political movement in America that looks to continue to deteriorate capitalism, in favor of socialist legislation.

[crosso√er]

Of course. Wealth shows a strong correlation with age. People tend to save as they grow older.

Exactly; especially with all the tax incentives emerging.

[3ptShooter]

It isn't about entitlement. You are talking about getting things for free. I'm talking about people being paid a livable income for jobs that were once able to support the middle class and now -- with CEOs taking 10 times the money that they used to out of the pot (literally, 10-20 times) -- those jobs cannot support a single person, let alone an entire family.

Why do CEOs need to earn 500x what an average worker in a company makes? Weren't they satisfied with *only* taking 30x the income?

too damn busy with work to respond to all i'd like to but just a few quick things.

1. it's a very complex issue to discuss, regardless of the casual cliches thrown around

2. many of those graphs are political and may be deceptive. example:



they clearly pick the years the housing bubble burst. they could pick only 2004-2006 and it would be a rosy outlook. btw - the majority of americans own stock, so that +720 affects most through pensions, 401k's, investments...

and why no mention of who is paying what % of taxes? would seem to be helpful in a fair debate. how about the wealth they create (although I'd bet that is going down too compared to the past).




if you look you'll see that the wealthiest line goes up sharply during the boom times. you'll see reagan, the internet bubble and burst (95-99), and the housing bubble (03-07). i'd bet that top line had dipped accordingly with the crash.

also regarding that line, the wealthy have the money to invest in stocks, houses, business, so when the booms come they benefit the most. compound interest helps too. it also benefits everyone.

most of the posts here are at least partially right. thanks to globalization and many other factors, the middle class will never be the same. also true that we don't have it all that bad.

I do agree with you that a large number of the elite wealthy are republicans in this country. I could have probably put that in someplace in OP, but I just wanted to keep my opinion out of the OP as much as possible without starting the thread outright bashing people.

As for the voting aspect that you mentioned, I think it all boils down to what people watch or read throughout their daily life that determines what they do when they go to vote. There is a saying that says something like "a few control the minds of many."

Basically that is how successful propaganda works. What information a few guys put out will determine who wins the election when the time comes. It is a definitely disturbing how quickly a FEW guys are able to incite everyone that is listening/watching/reading them just based on the wording and tone that they use.

I remember reading there being a study on this in psychology before when we were talking about propaganda some time back. I'm sure a simple google search on propaganda would bring tons of results on that specific study (the one that I am thinking of was done early in the decade, I'm sure there were other new studies since and studies on propaganda from before that).

I truly wish we had better media in this country. People like Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, etc intentionally make it seem like the middle-class is glorious and they have more power than the other groups of people in this country. Guys like those incite hatred against the other groups of people in this country that are making much less than they are to protect their own huge salaries.

Doesn't Bill O'Reilly proudly say that he considers himself a middle-class member? I know he said that a couple times (on youtube videos, google it up). The truth is that he makes a few millions per year.

And most of the FOX watchers believe him when he says he is middle-class. I asked a conservative friend of mine how much he thinks O'Reilly makes every year - he told me $250,000. I told him that O'Reilly actually makes over 10 million every year, and I said right away that I have proof of it (in case if he interrupts me to ask for proof). INSTANTLY he starts to talk about how much money O'Reilly gives away to help out the poor. It was almost automatic as if he had to defend O'Reilly for some reason. It was so quick that I almost felt like it was a defense mechanism.

wow - from "i don't want to inject politics" to all this. it was obvious when you posted a link from mother jones, but i guess you lasted 4 pages.

1. saying beck and o'reilly fool the middle class into thinking they have it good is absurd. "if they only knew the truth" is a sad refrain from either side.

2. you know why o'reilly makes all that money? cause he makes them a ton and is therefore worth every penny! not exactly sure what's wrong with that. he did come from a middle class background from what i understand and gives a boatload to charity.

if you actually watched you'll find that o'reilly has more varied view points than most news/opinion shows on tv. i guess that doesn't matter. you only want one opinion given.

btw: democrats and republicans supported nafta. when ross perot was attacking it, you know who debated him in favor of nafta?

Thank Bush and the republicans that have ruined this country. They are on the wrong side of every issue.

yeah. not one single issue that caused... ah nevermind.

Cleveland became a shit hole because of greedy CEO's; it might be offensive but you just admitted of it being the truth.

Look, I know you're from Cleveland it's close to your heart. I've visited the city in 2009 and it was disgusting man. It does piss me off that this country is dominated by fortune 500 companies and people like you struggle; but it's something we should have dealt with a long time ago. Now you want change and force-feed the government to distribute wealth; it's plausible just not in the short-term, and by that I mean, not in your life time.

[COLOR="DarkRed"]it's not greedy CEO's for damn sake! [/COLOR] don't you realize that when business is faced with cheaper labor and competion that is using it, they are usually forced to adapt or go under?

you mentioned cleveland. i have family from the steel mill days. greedy CEO's didn't kill the mills, just like they didn't kill the car industry. cheap foreign competition and labor did it to both!

if all the ceo's got paid nothing, it wouldn't do a thing to solve the problem.

i hate it as much as anyone, but class warefare doesn't help.

[bladefd]

wow - from "i don't want to inject politics" to all this. it was obvious when you posted a link from mother jones, but i guess you lasted 4 pages.

1. saying beck and o'reilly fool the middle class into thinking they have it good is absurd. "if they only knew the truth" is a sad refrain from either side.

2. you know why o'reilly makes all that money? cause he makes them a ton and is therefore worth every penny! not exactly sure what's wrong with that. he did come from a middle class background from what i understand and gives a boatload to charity.

if you actually watched you'll find that o'reilly has more varied view points than most news/opinion shows on tv. i guess that doesn't matter. you only want one opinion given.

1) You are putting words in my mouth. I didn't say that Beck/O'reilly make the middle-class think they have it good.

What I did say is that Beck/O'reilly make it seem like the middle-class is glorious and you have the freedom to vote for who you want in power. They basically make it seem like it is the middle-class that has the numbers so they can decide whoever they want to put into office. I wish that is how it worked..

The people do not directly vote for the president due to the electoral college; a representative in the electoral college does not necessarily need to side with the popular vote if they don't want to. Also, the people running for presidency also usually need to have money to run to begin with. Maybe not big money but they need decent money to start a political campaign for presidency. How many middle-class people have successfully run for a presidency campaign in the last 50 years? By middle-class I'm talking about people with salaries around 50k-60k or under.

Then there is propaganda that changes who has a specific piece of knowledge; if somebody doesn't want to show you a specific piece of information about somebody, they won't. They can easily play around it or change the wording/tone to try to make an outrage out of something minuscule. That was my point to the guy I was quoting since he was talking about how the voting system is a mess.

2) You're right, he has worked his way up the ladder. He makes millions for Fox and in return, FOX has to repay a fraction of what he makes for FOX. I have no problem with him making what he makes. Hell, he could be getting paid $20 million per year, nothing wrong with it. What I have a problem with though is him considering himself part of the middle-class. He was a middle-class member once, but he is not a middle-class member anymore. Why does he say he is middle-class when he clearly isn't?

3) No, Bill O'Reilly doesn't have as varied viewpoint as you say. Want to see? Go on youtube and search up Bill O'Reilly. Go through video after video of O'Reilly talking over the years. That's all I will say.

btw - I don't want to single out Beck/O'Reilly. The left side also has plenty of crazy people like Beck/O'Reilly, Olbermann and Maher are a similar way when it comes to inciting people on their side against the other side. Media has become an issue around here as I mentioned multiple times.

[shlver]

1) You are putting words in my mouth. I didn't say that Beck/O'reilly make the middle-class think they have it good.

What I did say is that Beck/O'reilly make it seem like the middle-class is glorious and you have the freedom to vote for who you want in power. They basically make it seem like it is the middle-class that has the numbers so they can decide whoever they want to put into office. I wish that is how it worked..

The people do not directly vote for the president due to the electoral college; a representative in the electoral college does not necessarily need to side with the popular vote if they don't want to.

Then there is propaganda that changes who has a specific piece of knowledge; if somebody doesn't want to show you a specific piece of information about somebody, they won't. They can easily play around it or change the wording/tone to try to make an outrage out of something minuscule. That was my point to the guy I was quoting since he was talking about how the voting system is a mess.

2) You're right, he has worked his way up the ladder. He makes millions for Fox and in return, FOX has to repay a fraction of what he makes for FOX. I have no problem with him making what he makes. Hell, he could be getting paid $20 million per year, nothing wrong with it. What I have a problem with though is him considering himself part of the middle-class. He was a middle-class member once, but he is not a middle-class member anymore. Why does he say he is middle-class when he clearly isn't?

3) No, Bill O'Reilly doesn't have as varied viewpoint as you say. Want to see? Go on youtube and search up Bill O'Reilly. Go through video after video of O'Reilly talking over the years. That's all I will say.

btw - I don't want to single out Beck/O'Reilly. The left side also has plenty of crazy people like Beck/O'Reilly, Olbermann and Maher are a similar way when it comes to inciting people on their side against the other side. Media has become an issue around here as I mentioned multiple times.

Which has only happened like twice and only one candidate has lost with the majority popular vote.

[Hawker]

Thank Bush and the republicans that have ruined this country. They are on the wrong side of every issue.

[bladefd]

Which has only happened like twice and only one candidate has lost with the majority popular vote.

That's a good point. I tried to do the wording in that sentence as neutrally as possible because I realized that while typing that post. In the original post that I had typed up, I realized that I was being too harsh and I changed up wording a bit before I submitted that post. Glad you didn't see what I had typed up in that paragraph before posting.

I just try to be more careful nowadays before submitting reply. anyways I hope the rest of that post makes logical sense.

btw - plenty of electoral college members have gone against the popular vote in their own small area of the election. That wasn't what I was saying in that post though so I won't act like I was. Overall for national popular vote, only Al Gore has lost a national popular vote

[Naruto-sama]

The problem is NOT capitalism. The problem is the deterioration of capitalism in our country, being replaced with socialist and tyrannical rule. The federal reserve is not an instrument of capitalism. The heavy regulation on our businesses is not an instrument of capitalism.

If you don't know what I'm talking about in that last paragraph, yet you think the problem is capitalism.. you need to do more research before you become part of the political movement in America that looks to continue to deteriorate capitalism, in favor of socialist legislation.

[joe]

It's true man. All this capitalism hate is extremely dangerous. Capitalism made us the prosperous country we are to begin with. Capitalism increases the wealth of the country, it uplifts the middle class and lower class. The problems in America have nothing to do with capitalism, because the truth is we don't have true capitalism in America right now. We have heavily regulated capitalism mixed with fascism, socialism, and big government. Those are your enemies, not capitalism.

[Jasper]

Of course. Wealth shows a strong correlation with age. People tend to save as they grow older.

This could be read in a misleading way.
Facts show that a SMALL majority of baby boomers have saved.
Their vast amount of economic stimilus to our society has been vested in buying.
I am a baby boomer , and never had done as much as the average middle class baby boomer , and yet I am in serious trouble.

When you talk about wealth correlates with age , you are only refering to individuals that have enough wealth to sustain their life styles as well as save lump sums of equity.

If I were to save as my parents advised me , to eventually buy the house I am in right now .. it would of taken a considerable amount of my life to acquire it , to find in less than 10 years that appreciation value had dropped 25-33%.
As many baby boomers have done borrowing is the name of the game.
That said the majority of baby boomers that are from 50-65 have little savings ,but on paper as I am are worth more than their parents because of all the money spent.
That spent money gets you seldom any revenue in return at the present time.

[shlver]

This could be read in a misleading way.
Facts show that a SMALL majority of baby boomers have saved.
Their fast amount of economic stimilus to our society has been vested in buying.
I am a baby boomer , and never had done as much as the average middle class baby boomer , and yet I am in serious trouble.

When you talk about wealth correlates with age , you are only refering to individuals that have enough wealth to sustain their life styles as well as save lump sums of equity.

If I were to safe as my parents advised me , to eventually buy the house I am in right now .. it would of taken a considerable amount of my life to acquire it , to find in less than 10 years that appreciation value had dropped 25-33%.
As many baby boomers have done borrowing is the name of the game.
That said the majority of baby boomers that are from 50-65 have little savings ,but on paper as I am are worth more than their parents because of all the money spent.
That spent money gets you seldom any revenue in return at the present time.

No it is not misleading at all. People tend to work and save as they get older and become more mature with money.

[RedBlackAttack]

It's true man. All this capitalism hate is extremely dangerous. Capitalism made us the prosperous country we are to begin with. Capitalism increases the wealth of the country, it uplifts the middle class and lower class. The problems in America have nothing to do with capitalism, because the truth is we don't have true capitalism in America right now. We have heavily regulated capitalism mixed with fascism, socialism, and big government. Those are your enemies, not capitalism.

Unrestricted, unregulated capitalism can be as dangerous as unchecked communism, socialism, etc.

We have never had a completely capitalistic society. It didn't exist in America's formative years and it doesn't exist now. The best systems are ultimately the ones who can take the good aspects of different socio-economic systems and implement them while maintaining the integrity of the thing.

Funny that you mention the non-capitalistic ventures as what is killing America... As if implementing other systems in certain areas is a new idea... Or something that the founders didn't intend.

Do you know what a strict interpretation of capitalism leads to? The Triangle fire. Look it up...

[Disaprine]

iam not very surprised by that, the system has been fucked up for a while now.

[iamgine]

Pareto principle. 20% of the population controls 80% of the wealth. Always been true, and will continue to be true.

[RedBlackAttack]

and why no mention of who is paying what % of taxes? would seem to be helpful in a fair debate. how about the wealth they create (although I'd bet that is going down too compared to the past).

It hasn't just gone down... It has shrunk to relatively nothing (compared to past decades). The top marginal tax rate in the 1950s was 91-92%.

Now, it is mid-30%.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

People are calling Obama a socialist because he wants to raise the marginal tax rate for the Top 1% from 35% to 37%. Meanwhile, under Eisenhower and back when the middle class was at its absolute strongest, the top marginal tax rate was 91%.

If we are turning to socialism by going from 35 to 37%, what the hell kind of system was it when we were at 91%? It is fascinating to me that people fall for these talking-points.

Meanwhile, the redistribution of wealth to the top is absolutely clear.... And Obama is a socialist because he wants to raise the top marginal tax rate from 35 to 37%.

SMH

Not that it will solve anything to make such an incremental raise or even a massive raise in the top marginal tax rate. Our problems go far, far deeper than that, which I have outlined in prior posts.

However, I do think it is pretty ridiculous that our marginal tax rate stops at around $300,000. So, a person who makes $1 billion a year is paying the same taxes as a family who brings in $300,000 a year.

That tax rate should continue to go up as it gets into the ludicrously over-the-top salaries. Maybe, under a system like that, the top marginal tax rate can actually even approach what it was in the economic boom-time in America -- the 1950s.

Maybe we also wouldn't have such a massive deficit. Food for thought.

btw: democrats and republicans supported nafta. when ross perot was attacking it, you know who debated him in favor of nafta?

As I said early on in this thread, this isn't a left-right issue... Or it shouldn't be. This impacts everyone.

Do you want to know whom I consider the greatest offender in the absolute decimation of the US manufacturing base? It's not Reagan or Bush or Bush II or Obama...

It was Clinton. Sure, those other guys played a part and later presidents furthered his policies, but Clinton -- the face of the 'new' moderate democratic party -- was the one who pushed NAFTA through. He is the one who massively lowered tariffs. He is the one who endorsed other trade agreements that made it more cost efficient for companies to pack up their things and leave than to provide jobs to Americans and keep their money circulating in this country.

It was Clinton who I consider mainly responsible for these massive CEO earnings... And he is maybe the major culprit in the destruction of the middle class.

For as revered as he has become to the modern American left, if they really examined his policies and their impacts, I doubt many would walk away with a smile on their faces.

[COLOR="DarkRed"]it's not greedy CEO's for damn sake! [/COLOR] don't you realize that when business is faced with cheaper labor and competion that is using it, they are usually forced to adapt or go under?

you mentioned cleveland. i have family from the steel mill days. greedy CEO's didn't kill the mills, just like they didn't kill the car industry. cheap foreign competition and labor did it to both!

if all the ceo's got paid nothing, it wouldn't do a thing to solve the problem.

i hate it as much as anyone, but class warefare doesn't help.

How can you possibly say that attempting to get these CEO salaries under control wouldn't help the situation? If a CEO was making, say, 50x the average worker instead of 500x, I think it is safe to say that said worker would be in much better shape to support his family, re-circulate that money into the economy, buy things... And, all of that extra money could also fund more jobs for more people.

No, it isn't going to 'solve' the real problem. These massive CEO salaries are only the RESULT of the core problems. But, that doesn't mean that they should be ignored and deemed hopeless in trying to remedy.