How does the rich gain at the poor's loss?

Yes, rich and poor are not relative terms. No, the economy is not a zero sum game.

 

It sounds to me like anything that would prove you wrong would be considered liberal. Is that true? Is there anything besides conservative media that you would accept as a source? What do you consider unbiased? I just want to know before I bother to get involved in this conversation. If you say Fox, I'm just going to close the thread.

 

Many believe that the wealthy profit heavily off of the workers and don't give workers a fair share. Their profits increase while the workers they use to make that profit do not see the same increase.

 

So how do you define a fair share? I'm extremely skeptical about this.

When unions whine about Wall Marts "slave wages" it's often a lie and what they're really trying to do is get more money for themselves by using a smokescreen.

 

"Slave wages". That's almost funny.

 

The simple version is concentration of wealth.

 

Which is one point I do agree with on socialism.

Concentration of wealth is a bad thing. It just leads to another kind of tyranny.

Being wealthy in and of itself is not an evil thing, however.

 

Increasing wealth disparity in the United States is pretty much accepted fact even on Fox.. What is worth discussing is why it is occurring and whether is is harmful to our society. And of course if it is deemed harmful what if anything should be done about it.

 

When you couple increasing wealth disparity with reduced income level mobility( see GINI coefficient ) the combination points towards and increasingly divided society which will eventually be supplanted by more unified and motivated societies.

As to what can be done. A good place to start would be a world class public school system instead of the system we now have that funds public schools locally thus insuring that in general school quality correlates with average income in the school district.

 

So. Sounds like what we got now. And those complaining -- rich politicians and losers with their hands out and envy in their hearts.

Poppycock. Let the states control the school system, get D.C. out of the picture, get rid of the unions, let the schools and states compete. Give someone with a backbone the authority to fire the lazy incompetent teachers. Teach the basic education, as well as mechanics and arts. Stop protecting unruly kids. Send them to a reform school. Action gets it done. Talking don't cut the mustard.

 

To simple points. In answer to your first point those discussing the problem are not necessarily losers. Guarantee I have way more money then you will ever see in your life.

Point two is research the history of the New Jersey school system.

 

It's just math.

If anything is worth what a person will pay for it, and one person has $100 and another person has $1, and you've got the only glass of water in the desert, what is the glass of water worth?

But it's not just glasses of water in the desert, of course. It's also (ESPECIALLY) medicine. Food. Shelter. Education (that's a big one).

You end up with these cycles where a person spends their childhood without nutrition or an education, which means that their job prospects are pretty narrow, which means that they don't have the money to get nutrition or an education, which means they can't get a good job, which means that they can't get nutrition or an education, which means that they can't get a good job, which means ...

It's just math. It's not philosophy or ideology. Math. Wealth disparity screws over the people on the bottom of the financial equation. That's just the way it works. It seems so obvious that I don't get why we have to explain it.

 

It is mostly occurring because the rich invest and the stock market has been inflated which may not last forever.

 

It did during the internet bubble when burger flippers were make well above minimum wage.

 

Another reason for the disparity is that those that do not invest usually have their biggest equity in housing and the housing market crashed causing a wider disparity. The housing market was inflated and had to collapse.

 

Brilliant.
thank you for such an illuminating, insightful and intellectual response.

 

Right. I knew the world bank was full of it.

I guess these guys also are out to lunch. Your ignorant assertion that GINI isn't in the mainstream of economic discussion is laughable. Might want to stick your head up and look around.

Here' just a couple of "non-mainstream" economic groups like the London School of Economics that appear to take it rather seriously.

http://www.global-economic-symposium.org/knowledgebase/inequality-and-human-capital/proposals/inequality-and-human-capital

London school of economics GINI Conference

APEC Economic Disparity pdf

 

I'll give you a little hint. In 1981 Reagan slashed tax rates for the rich to the lowest they had been in 50 years. Then he continued to spend at a rate which increased each year he was in office. He borrowed $3 trillion to cover the shortfall thereby using foreign banks to fill the pockets of the wealthiest people in the United States. Trickle Down my ass......unless you count the warm urine running down the backs of the average Joe it only worked for the wealthy. I had been a Republican all my life but when I saw that I went twenty years before I even voted again in a national election. I'll never vote for their "low tax rates for corporations and the wealthy" policies again if I live to 100.

Besides that.....they don't even pay what they owe. In 2011 Mitt Romney paid 14% on about $15,000,000 of income. That's about the same rate my wife and I paid on less than $100,000. He gave his tax accountants and lawyer a bonus.

 

I wish everyone had more money than I will ever see in my life. (P.S. Spend some of your money on typing, spelling, and proofreading lessons)

I don't have to. I have experience and common sense. I know what will work.

 

How does airplane engines work?

"Magic and pixie dust".


Yea, right.

- - - Updated - - -

"Grey blue-sky"
"Circle-Square"
"Solid liquid"
"A thinking liberal"

- - - Updated - - -

They have some good songs, to be fair. Didn't they break up to keep it real?

 

Why is it bad?

You saw a cute girl that looks really hot with perfect booty and two double Ds. You went hitting on her starting with a cheesy pickup line and through conversation, you came to realize she has two PhDs, one in neuroscience, one in aerodynamics.

Is she bad?

- - - Updated - - -

Oh C'mon dude, it's not about "whether" it's about "How".

 

Not the same thing as what I mean.

In today's society corporations do what they can to maximize their profits whit a belief that "if it brings you great profit and isn't illegal then you should do it". Which means that they do whatever they can to stifle competition and monopolize on the wealth. that's what groups like RIAA is doing in the modern age. The electric car in california was also a result of this philiosophy. In California there was a push to move away from fossil fuels in favor of the electric car but the big oil companies squashed this because they didn't want the competition.

Historically speaking, this is how we got robber barony. In the 1800s the big corporations did this same thing, tried to bully people into submission. That's how the unions got started in order to combat big business tyranny.

That's why I am against consolidation of wealth, is because of these kinds of practices.

Edit: And anti-trust laws are the result of big business tyranny.