|
|
Post by driveshaftgrunt on Aug 14, 2011 14:57:39 GMT -5
www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/can-the-middle-class-be-saved/8600/Note the figures on the accumulation of wealth at the top. The notion that there "aren't enough rich people" is a silly one. Its very, very, very simple. That nation has a finite amount of wealth at any given time. And it generates a certain amount of growth at any given time. For 30+ years, both the nation's wealth and growth have gone more and more to the top few. We're approaching income and wealth disparity levels not seen since before the Great Depression. Yet some politicians advocate MORE of the same policies that have contributed to the situation. We're headed to a New Gilded Age, and the death of unionism is just a small part of that. The wealthy completely owning the political system, and convincing the working class that this is okay, or natural is a big part of it...... We're at point where advocating some of the policies from the Reagan administration is considered "too liberal".
|
|
|
|
Post by driveshaftgrunt on Aug 17, 2011 11:19:56 GMT -5
Nothing? Is it the actual policy discussion throwing you all off? Or just the raw data?  ?  |
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Aug 17, 2011 13:23:50 GMT -5
....cry baby!....
I get exceedingly tired of the constant refrain in this country about how the "rich get richer and the poor get poorer"; or statements to that effect by the intellectuals of the left....and repeated by retards on blogs....
Yesterday's "rich" are not the same as today's:
The numbers generally cited in support of this argument do not actually tell us much about what has happened to the incomes of wealthy households over time. That’s because the people who are in the top bracket today are not the people who were in the top bracket last year. There’s a good deal of socioeconomic mobility in the United States..... more than you’d think. Our dear, dear friends at the IRS keep track of actual households (boy, do they ever!)....and sometimes the Treasury publishes data about what has happened to them. For instance, among those who in 1996 were in the very highest income group isolated for study — the top 0.01 percent .... 75 percent were in a lower income group by 2005. The median real income of super-rich households went down, not up. The rich got poorer. Among actual households, income grew proportionally more for those who started off in the low-income groups than those that began in high-income groups.
When somebody says that that top 1 percent saw its income go up by X in the last decade, they are not really talking about what happened to actual households in the top 1 percent. Rather, they are talking about how much money one has to make to qualify for the top 1 percent. All that really means is that the 3 million highest-paid Americans in 2010 made more money than did the 3 million highest-paid Americans in 2000, the 100,000 highest-paid Americans this year made more money than did the 100,000 highest-paid Americans made in 2000, that the 50,000 highest-paid Americans made more money this year than did the 50,000 highest-paid Americans made in 2000, that the 1,000 highest-paid Americans this year made more money than did the 1,000 highest-paid Americans made in 2000, etc., which is not shocking. But, as the Treasury data show: They are not the same people.....
These essential facts make the argument routinely trotted out by the left repeatedly to justify their various policies to "redistribute the wealth" ....completely ridiculous.
WEALTH IS CONSTANTLY BEING REDISTRIBUTED ....not by their Marxist policies or 'compassionate' progressivism...but through the neutral, non-partisan and entirely non-judgmental workings of the Market. The "wealthy" are an ever-changing group of individuals. And, the poor are getting richer....not because of any actions by the clever denizens of the left, thank you very much.
Of course, the political lefts and their strategists have a rather vested interest in stirring up class warfare and stoking hatred against "the wealthy".
But that is one thing that the progressive left is incredibly good at....bad economic thinking.
Far from rising up against their "oppressors", the working/middle class.....in a free system--will want to become wealthy themselves. In America, they have bought into the capitalist system and the "American Dream"....i.e., that they can achieve anything they want with hard work and perseverance-- in large numbers. The sharp differences between the classes have been eroding for generations primarily because of the social mobility ..... as well as the very human desire to improve conditions for themselves and their posterity. Nore and more of those who start out in poverty find their way into the middle class, thus gaining hope for themselves and their children.
Those who make their way up to the highest earners, will find that it is not a "given" to remain in that upper stratum and that they may tumble down without putting forth constant effort and thought (note the number of "instant" millioaires who, after winning the lottery, will waste away their windfall and end up worse off than they were when they won it). It takes more than the possession of money to hold onto wealth, it takes rational thought and effort.
That is why, to great astonishment of the socialists, many of the "oppressed" working/middle class are relatively happy and content with their lot! That is why progressives have resorted to calling such individuals "class traitors" or "race traitors", because they dare to do well (without the progressive's compassionate programs; or in spite of them more likely) and are able to move themselves into entrepreneurship and beyond.
Happy and content people do not generally initiate violent revolutions nor rise up against their so-called oppressors(RICH)...particularly when they don't feel oppressed, but feel empowered.
But, even worse from the "progressive" viewpoint, is the typical person in the middle class who believes that he or she can better themselves by using the many opportunities offered by a free, capitalistic democracy. That's why the left are so desperate to create more victimhood constituencies who will proudly stand for all those unworkable policies. That's why they always resort to stoking the "evil rich" meme....
They still believe that my money (and yours) causes everyone else's poverty. They have an intense psychological need to believe that because it justifies their stealing other people's wealth.
As long as they can seduce others into believing they are being victimized by the "rich", they are able to get away with supporting the same old, tired economic policies that make them feel good about themselves, but do little to improve the lot of the poor; or to give those who are struggling economically the opportunities that will help them escape perpetual poverty.
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Aug 17, 2011 15:58:39 GMT -5
Death of unionism is something I agree with you on.But its both the partys doing it to us,obama could have at anytime changed our trade policy.Nafta gatt etc..to allow us to compete with other countries.With all our Regs and taxes and our standard of living,healthcare and on and on we cant compete with china or mexico.
|
|
|
|
Post by ktpelec on Aug 17, 2011 18:46:23 GMT -5
Statistics can be manipulated to represent anything you like. The ones I've read say many more people are in forclosure, many more people, especially children are in poverty than ever before. The average income of the middle class has gone down, etc...
A huge percentage of middle and lower class people have no hope of ever being "rich," they believe the rich are in total control and they are hopelessly stuck, with no way to move up.
|
|
|
|
Post by driveshaftgrunt on Aug 18, 2011 14:50:37 GMT -5
Just because someone sold you on Randinsky jobs, doesn't make me a retard...........
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Aug 18, 2011 15:01:03 GMT -5
You must have hit a sore spot driveshaft. Name calling usually comes in the middle or end of a post.
Well done.
|
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Aug 18, 2011 15:21:04 GMT -5
....are you still crying? ......
|
|
|
|
Post by driveshaftgrunt on Aug 18, 2011 15:58:48 GMT -5
Can you discuss pure economic data?
Lack the background?
Or is it just a talking point barf-fest?
|
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Aug 18, 2011 22:11:02 GMT -5
you have your data/sources(the atlantic) and you say you're are right, I have my data/sources(IRS) and I say I'm right...nothing changes....and that is why I did not care about this tread untill you started whining! .....so I posted something to make you happy....so if you don't like what/why or even how I post.... too bad!
.......so there you have it!.....if you want jobs1stb4polarbear to post something on your tread, just start whining....which may I add, Liberal are experts at it anyways....lol
|
|
