US inequality at historic high, surpassing Roaring ’20s - Polidicks

I'd also like to add the mentality of people. In order for an economy to be booming, you have to take some risks to push the economical engine. I'm willing to bet that alot of people are still hesitant to spend, or can't all together and for understandable reasons. But someone has to atleast get the ball rolling so that others can follow

[QUOTE=Swilly;42153451]And if you give people higher wages, they'll have more spending money to buy things. The fuck are are you smoking?[/QUOTE] I used to live on minimum wage for years genius. I was on minimum wage for the past two increases of minimum wage (from 5.75 to 6.40 and from 6.40 to 7.25) and my post was based on my experiences and the experiences of everyone I knew in the same situation at the time. And when we got more spending money, we saved it. We weren't going to immediately go out and find new ways to waste our tiny increase in income.

The town I live in is a huge tourist town, they hide poor people in these nice old Victorian apartments, they're shit on the inside. The tourists drive by and go "aww look at the cute house".

[QUOTE=breakyourfac;42154218]The town I live in is a huge tourist town, they hide poor people in these nice old Victorian apartments, they're shit on the inside. The tourists drive by and go "aww look at the cute house".[/QUOTE] I'm surprised to hear your town attracts any tourists at all. :v:

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;42153087]And goods will go up with it.[/QUOTE] Not by much however, also take into consideration that raising the minimum wage does not cause inflation as it's not in itself creating money from nothing. [url]http://www.epi.org/publication/ib341-raising-federal-minimum-wage/[/url] [url]http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/labor/news/2012/06/20/11749/the-facts-on-raising-the-minimum-wage-when-unemployment-is-high-2/[/url]

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;42152630]Welfare isn't solution to this problem. I am not saying welfare is bad or unneeded, this is just entirely different layer of the issue. Capitalism and free market, as it's currently standing and running in USA particularly (but to a degree globally), is inherently broken, unstable, dysfunctional, and bound to eventually collapse. That's a simple fact.[/QUOTE] "free market" isn't necessarily a horrible system, capitalism is. a free market socialist system would be preferable to our current system. [editline]11th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;42153513]Raising minimum wages won't solve poverty. Yes raising wages means people can buy more things. You just don't realize that prices are going to rise as well and you will more or less end up back at stage 1.[/QUOTE] that would only be true if prices were determined solely by the cost of labor.

The 1% should give each 99% $100,000 I don't care how they divide it up just do it!!

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42154310]"free market" isn't necessarily a horrible system, capitalism is. a free market socialist system would be preferable to our current system. [editline]11th September 2013[/editline] that would only be true if prices were determined solely by the cost of labor.[/QUOTE] Free market socialist system WTF? I would rather have 20 and the other guy have 100 than have 10 and the other guy have 30. [QUOTE]The pie of the economy is supposed to be getting bigger making everybody richer.[/QUOTE] Growth does not equal development. we had "chinese" growth rates for a couple of years, yet most (more than 70% of the employed workforce) has a salary not bigger than 8000 pesos a month. That's three times the minimum. And with all the taxes'n'stuff, you are left with nothing. Check Chile, yes, socialists may be complaining this and that, but the real fact is, that chile has seen its poverty decrease steadily in 30 years and its HDI rise. PS: US free market? Capitalism, of course. Free market, my fucking ass.

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;42154549]Free market socialist system WTF? I would rather have 20 and the other guy have 100 than have 10 and the other guy have 30.[/QUOTE] i'm sorry to hear that.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42154310]that would only be true if prices were determined solely by the cost of labor.[/QUOTE] True, although labour costs have a large part to play in determining prices. Availability of money does this as well. If some shopkeeper hears that wages are going up, he's going to raise prices to offset this, and if he holds a local monopoly in the town, then there's not a lot his customers can do about that.

[QUOTE] i'm sorry to hear that. [/QUOTE] Then inequality doesn't mean shit.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42154585]True, although labour costs have a large part to play in determining prices. Availability of money does this as well. If some shopkeeper hears that wages are going up, he's going to raise prices to offset this, and if he holds a local monopoly in the town, then there's not a lot his customers can do about that.[/QUOTE] that's a problem with one person having a monopoly period. in a competitive market, prices would only increase slightly because labor doesn't do as much to determine price. most of the cost of mass produced goods is in raw materials. [editline]11th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Cutthecrap;42154604]Then inequality doesn't mean shit.[/QUOTE] cut the crap, cutthecrap. [editline]11th September 2013[/editline] also if chinese workers are getting paid in pesos, then shit is worse over there than i thought.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42154623]also if chinese workers are getting paid in pesos, then shit is worse over there than i thought.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying that there's a problem but something tells me you don't have extensive knowledge in how Chinese, and for that matter, U.S. economics works.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;42152630]Welfare isn't solution to this problem. I am not saying welfare is bad or unneeded, this is just entirely different layer of the issue. Capitalism and free market, as it's currently standing and running in USA particularly (but to a degree globally), is inherently broken, unstable, dysfunctional, and bound to eventually collapse. That's a simple fact.[/QUOTE] welfare is the solution to the problem

[QUOTE] cut the crap, cutthecrap. [/QUOTE] You must have made a lot of effort. I can see that. Congrats. Now, would you get back on topic and stop behaving like a 10 year old?

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;42154549]Free market socialist system WTF? I would rather have 20 and the other guy have 100 than have 10 and the other guy have 30. Growth does not equal development. we had "chinese" growth rates for a couple of years, yet most (more than 70% of the employed workforce) has a salary not bigger than 8000 pesos a month. That's three times the minimum. And with all the taxes'n'stuff, you are left with nothing. Check Chile, yes, socialists may be complaining this and that, but the real fact is, that chile has seen its poverty decrease steadily in 30 years and its HDI rise. PS: US free market? Capitalism, of course. Free market, my fucking ass.[/QUOTE] it's true that Chile has experienced massive growth and prosperity post-1973 but at the moment we're having the same problem as the US. the economic disparity in Chile is just as bad as the United States', in fact, one could argue it's made worse by how incredibly centralized our government is. most of the wealth is concentrated in the capital, the other regions are basically just resource baskets that we sell to foreign investors.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;42154669]I'm not saying that there's a problem but something tells me you don't have extensive knowledge in how Chinese, and for that matter, U.S. economics works.[/QUOTE] wait do chinese workers actually get paid in pesos? [editline]11th September 2013[/editline] oh nvm he said "chinese growth rates", i thought he was talking about chinese wages.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42154623]that's a problem with one person having a monopoly period. in a competitive market, prices would only increase slightly because labor doesn't do as much to determine price. most of the cost of mass produced goods is in raw materials.[/QUOTE] Yeah, although having a truly free and competitive market is difficult at best. Economies of scale allow big stores like costco or walmart to outcompete a lot of people, although once established such stores more or less hold monopolies until another big store comes along. If a town is too small for two big stores, breaking a monopoly is difficult.

our current model of capitalism doesn't work because of human nature, plain and simple(hell you might say that about capitalism in general, since it requires eternal economical growth, which is impossible). if you actually want to solve poverty or at least severely diminish it, you need to add at least some socialist policies. but like pretty much everything regarding human nature, you need to have a fucking horrifying global catastrophe to change people's minds. for instance, Milton Friedman in the 40s suggested negative income tax, the man was a conservative btw and one of the greatests economists that ever lived. but if you hear a right-wing nowadays from pretty much anywhere in the planet suggest this, welp, he is probably gonna be eaten alive. for instance brazil is one the few countries to attempt something similiar to negative income tax in the form of bolsa familia, and its actually working VERY well in getting people out of extreme poverty, over 80% of the people that recieve it, did managed to greatly improve their situation, but we still face idiots(a sizable part of the middle class) saying "THOSE DAMN LAZY POORS!1".

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42154882]Yeah, although having a truly free and competitive market is difficult at best. Economies of scale allow big stores like costco or walmart to outcompete a lot of people, although once established such stores more or less hold monopolies until another big store comes along. If a town is too small for two big stores, breaking a monopoly is difficult.[/QUOTE] this doesn't make raising the minimum wage any worse of an idea though. people in small towns will always be shafted by monopolies. changing the minimum wage doesn't really affect it much.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;42153087]And goods will go up with it.[/QUOTE] So freeze the prices of goods. Make it so the only place corporations can cut spending is the wages of executives. They don't need a fleet of yachts.

[QUOTE=The Baconator;42153590]so why is neo con economics so much more popular in America compared to pretty much every other first world country ever? Cold War? Isolationism?[/QUOTE] Petty patriotism. Basically people going [I]'murrica FUCK YEAH!![/I] except they're actually dead serious about it.

A good way for lower-income families to save money is to go to the grocery store less often and, in place of those trips, find rich people to eat.

[QUOTE=Desuh;42152628]Maybe the poor people should just work harder instead of wanting everything handed to them. My father was born in a poor family but instead of whining and spending his money on iphones and tvs he worked 3 jobs while going to college. With the saved up money he started a company and is now a millionaire!!!!![/QUOTE] my grandpa worked a steel mill durring the day and went to school on the GI bill at night, that being said college was 10,000% cheaper back then, try looking up prices for any big schools without being shocked the problem is while one [B]can[/B] work their way up today, the paths they need to take to get wealth are becomming increasingly out of their reach. higher education prices just don't make any sense in any world you live in, textbooks cost hundreds of dollars in the west, while manufacturers sell them for maybe 20 bucks overseas. sustainable low income jobs don't exist anymore, they've all been outsourced or eliminated completely. Also the tax system is broken to all hell where there is a decreasing tax base with mushrooming goverment spending [editline]11th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=lavacano;42156324]So freeze the prices of goods. Make it so the only place corporations can cut spending is the wages of executives. They don't need a fleet of yachts.[/QUOTE] freezing prices causes stagflation and panic, we tried it with gas in the 1970s and it didn't work at all corporations should however be regulated in what they can give out in bonuses and incentives for CEOs, i am aware they worked very hard, but when your company is posting multi-million dollar losses, its morally wrong to take the damn bonus

We have a MASSIVELY less capitalistic system than we had in the 20s. If anything this shows that our giant amounts of government spending aren't helping at all.

I don't wanna be the guy that says Government interference in the market is a contributing factor to financial inequality, but Government interference in the market is a contributing factor to financial inequality.

Am I the only one really annoyed by that picture cause of the homeless man. Like seriously we need to help him and people just like him. I fucking get destroyed inside everytime I see someone digging through the trash for cans to deposit or just sitting there starving or in pain cause homeless also means no medical insurance. Fuck man.

[QUOTE=CubeManv2;42157366]Am I the only one really annoyed by that picture cause of the homeless man. Like seriously we need to help him and people just like him. I fucking get destroyed inside everytime I see someone digging through the trash for cans to deposit or just sitting there starving or in pain cause homeless also means no medical insurance. Fuck man.[/QUOTE] If you were to be in the UK, you may feel bad for people digging through trashcans, but the shit our supermarkets throw away is essentially perfectly good food that could have easily been donated to charity rather than binned. There was a documentary about it some time ago, was basically a bunch of hipsters just choosing to dig through the trashcans because it's alternative as fuck, but also nothing really unhealthy about what they were taking.

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;42154677]You must have made a lot of effort. I can see that. Congrats. Now, would you get back on topic and stop behaving like a 10 year old?[/QUOTE] You first. Everyone knows the system is broken, but realizes the time in which they could have fixed it has long passed. The people who profit from the inequity in the system are too entrenched now to remove from the system, and as the sole thing these entities care about is maintaining and expanding their wealth, they will not remove themselves, either. But look on the bright side: when this untenable system eventually collapses out from under them and takes the world economy with it, you can take solace in the fact that the ruling elite's wealth with be just as worthless as yours. That right there is true equality and the greatest example of karma ever.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42156688]We have a MASSIVELY less capitalistic system than we had in the 20s. If anything this shows that our giant amounts of government spending aren't helping at all.[/QUOTE] It might not be as capitalistic on the surface, but with how popular and also legal bribing politicians is, i'd strongly disagree with you.