Income Inequality in the US

Uh if I'm reading the graph correctly, the money made by top 20% accounts for 80% of the middle class.

So like 20 people in total has money of the 80 people out of 100 people in middle class, is this example correct?

If that is so, we all should be up in arms and raiding them to relieve them of their money woes.

Since I am not American, I might be a bit ignorant about the situation.

Nonetheless, here is my less than two cents worth of opinion on the matter: I believe the income inequality issue is cropping up in lots of countries, notably the more developed ones. Due to inflation and other reasons, the cost of living has gone up, but wages and salaries are either stagnant or not increasing fast enough... at least for the low- and middle-income earners. On the hand other, the rich have more than enough resources to keep reaping profits, provided they do so wisely.

By raising individual income tax, which I believe is a progressive tax, the rich will definitely complain and governments usually do not wish to offend them or put themselves in an unfavourable position. The same can be said of corporate tax. At the end of the day, the commoners tend to be disadvantaged.

*makes Excalibur face*

Truth of the matter is, working to better yourself is just one part, and, yes Virginia, governmental policies play another big part.

Edit: my friend puts it in a really great way...

but alas, there will probably always be stupid useless people with powerful relatives or labor unions to support slackers. if pay were based on quality of work, i'd be rich, and many of my bosses would be homeless by now.


also, i don't exactly trust the OP source. seems to be the liberal version of fauoxnews.

That may be so, but the research, which I also linked in the OP, is valid.

Heh, talk about the the schizophrenic nature of American politics. We speak like laissez-faire capitalists but what we want is social democracy.

Ugh, i ought to disagree! The inequality in communist regimes was not because the leaders earned much more, but because they were privileged and got things like houses, cars, vacations, etc. from the state rather than the workers/non-communists did. The leadership had hardly bigger wages than the workers.

America is America, and everyone has the chance to earn much, thats the way it is supposed to be. And if you don't like it, go to Scandinavia.

What an argument. Very solid.

So, because Somalia is a poor country, every somalian citizen should move to America, land of dreams becoming reality, since they probably don't like living in extreme poverty? Ridiculous.
I doubt you would be happy if thousands of billions of poor people suddenly landed on your "territory".

Oh, you don't like it? You can leave.



Pretentious and imperialist. So no other system else than your rotten capitalism can make you rich? Wait not even rich, we're talking about reducing the income inequality here. Humph, too bad America does not seem to have the solution.

Awww, cute little leftist student. :))))
Defending the workers rights, fighting evil capitalism-imperialism-fascism and stuff. You know how they say: "He who isn't a communist with 15, has no heart. He who is still a communist with 25, has no brain."

I have yet many years to reach 25, but I think my brain has already got a handle on me. :/

Yes, Somalia is very poor, and yes ~100 millions of people die from the consequences of malnutrition worldwide, while the global food production could feed 14 billion people, and food is get thrown away to keep the prizes up. So what? You can't change a thing, and you won't change a thing. Because the poverty of the poor makes the rich men rich. It is not a side-effect, it is a requirement.

And no, the Somali can't go to the USA, since they would need a immigration permit, which hardly any Somali would get.

You call my statements imperialist because I uphold capitalism inside of the USA? Have you read Lenin's "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism"? If you have, you should know that Imperialism is when Capitalism expands outside of its home country because it finds no further way to exploit it. So my statement can't be imperialistic at all. If I would have said "the Somalis should better get used to capitalism" - that would be imperialist.

And yes, no other system than capitalism could make me rich. Or actually, slave owner society and feudalism could make me rich as well. But socialism couldn't make me rich for sure. And like I said, you can't give to the poor without taking from the rich, and thats not going to happen.

And America has no problems, ask Warren Buffett, Sheldon Adelson or Paul Allen. Only the workers are unhappy ATM, but they will get used to it eventually.

I can understand your affection. You once said somewhere you have an Syrian grandfather. Syria surely got its "fair share" of war and poverty as well. It hurts seeing/knowing people in poverty.

I had similar feelings. I felt that the world was completely wrong and unfair and that it had to be drastically changed. I could not understand how people could count their dollars while others got shot and exploited in millions and billions. I felt so sorry for the poor parents that worked day and night, yet couldn't afford their children anything.

But in the end, it doesn't matter, all the poverty and suffering does not affect me, it is not my problem. And I have the possibility to make something out of this current situation. And you do as well, and everyone here on the forum.

So, my cute little leftist student (or should i say student-leftist), the problems in the world are marginal. Think how you can improve yourself, and use the world as it is to your benefit. This is all that matters, and this is what makes you happy.

okay... even if your a republican and your "supposed" to agree with that... how the hell can you, I mean for god sake thats just plain wrong. id say just strip the top 20% of all there wealth and put them into a life of hard labor but theres bound to be a few, not many but a few who actuly worked to get there.



@tachyon ....... you know.... i used to think i didn't have to many morals but.... my god seriously man??? what the hell. im sorry but its people with your mindset that are the problem. yes we cant help them all but we can at least try.

Doesn't mean we have to ignore it or accept it. And who says that you can't ever change it? Nobody really tired that hard before (because just sending them food in the cans from airdrops ain't going change a thing), so you never know. People said Titanic is unsinkable, and we all know how it ended.






Ha, ha, really?

Then why is there a financial crisis, and why is American government shitting itself over China?




Since when not being a dick is leftist? I don't particulary support the left, but I can't even believe 90% of your shit.



This is what brought this world to be such a shitty place. Exactly this. So you're telling us to screw the world and get rich? That might work, but only in short term. The it all runs out of steam, and you're pretty much fucked. Long-term thinking/planning. Ever heard of it? Because I don't think so.

WOW, you just opened my eyes! Nautical science and economics is basically the same! [/sarcasm]

The USA has got a more than ten times higher GDP per capita than China. It is no wonder that China still grows, but the more they are going to reach the level of developed countries, the less they will grow. And most of the corporations in China are US-owned.

As you already correctly stated, sending food and small donations is only a drop in the ocean.

Do you know how something would actually change? Look on any item next to you, and ask yourself where the ingredients come from. It will most probably be a low-wage country. Would you be ready to pay several times the price? Several times the price on almost anything? You even had to start several wars and kill millions of people, or else your gas would be too expensive for you, lol. Are you willing to give up your wealth for their weal? I don't think so.

The second alternative is to try to "redistribute the wealth"; raise taxes, socialize companies, and what not. The only consequence would be people packing their coffers and their capital and leaving the USA. This in consequence would only yet again decrease your wealth as in the first variation. Low taxes and freedom, that is what generates wealth.

The world is not a shitty place. It is just "unbalanced", and this unbalance gives rise to many opportunities that otherwise wouldn't have existed.



Whether or not it is only short time, depends how you invest it. Could you please formulate the second sentence into a economically comprehendible statement? Because i really don't see what you exactly want to say.

Conclusion: We can't do anything to really help anybody. It is up to every person what he does with his life. Some things are harder, some are easier, but nothing is impossible. If there should be "wealth redistribution", then only in very small amounts, and only to increase the purchasing power.

Ever occurred it to you that they can copy that technology those corporation bring in? At certain point, those companies will "outlive their usefulness".

Also, I'm not American, but my country was dragged into such wars. Because of people with your mindset. So yeah. I don't actually approve of this. I can understand it, but doesn't mean I have to accept it.

Also, if you didn't get the analogy, I'm not even going to elaborate it to you. It doesn't come down to economy at all.



They already did that, hurp durr, durr, and not just in States. When was the last time you saw something that isn't made in Asia?




I meant that presently, all the rich are doing is a resource/money grab. People pay no attention to the fact that the system that brought them wealth, can or is unstable, and can result in massive shitstorm a la '29. If bank CEO's would not be greedy fucks, they would realize that bubble would burst. It was evident even before the fall of Lehman Brothers. And crisis didn't fix it, since banks that should've failed are being kept half-alive by governments of our money.

And if their CEO's had any shred of humanity in them, they would decline their bonuses. If not for the decency, then at least for betterment of the company.

And how will more purchasing power make things better? At some point, you'll have too much of stuff (the value goes down), industry can't keep up (theoretically possible, but unlikely) or you will run out of things to buy.

Also, the "can't help anyone" part? Pathetic, defeatist bullshit.

The GDP of the USA is as big as Japan, China, South Korea, and some other small Easter-Asian countries together. So there is quite a lot which is not "made in Asia" but actually "made in USA", although much of it falls into the tertiary sector.

So the companies are still willing to stay in the US. "Redistribute the wealth" and you will chase them away, even you seem to comprehend that.

The one who is willing to risks his capital should earn more than some lazy-ass who sits at home, whats wrong with that? And to be a CEO you must have a lot of experience and you always carry a great burden. So this job must be well paid as well.

The system is quite simple and fair; the ones who help the economy the most, earn the most. And the few millions a top-CEO earns are really nothing to the wealth of the company he is supposed to lead.



For the simple minds:
When you purchase something the company gets money. When the company gets money, the government also gets money by taxes. The company invests this money to produce newer, better things and to create jobs.
If you don't purchase anything, there is no need for the workers to produce anything. They get fired. The company makes losses because they had expenses producing the stuff, but no profits. The government gets no taxes. The inflation eats the interest up.
Also, a side effect of spending is also that the customers maybe even get incited to work more to be able to spend more. It maybe also help their personal and professional development.
And no, you can not pile up electronics or food or services and ruin the economy with this...

Conclusion: You should not argue on topics you have no idea about, I also don't argue on Mangas I have never read.

Then the punishment should be the same - for failure, they should be the ones to pay, not the society.

You're also assuming that companies are mostly honest. Some genuinely are, but rest is not. They don't give a fuck about taxes, honesty, or which government gets the cut as long as the board gets it's bonuses.



Then take your advice to heart. 18th Century was 200 years ago, after all, and that's when your ideas applied. And that's where they are supposed to stay, which is something that certain people don't understand.

The spending thing? A large part of boom in early 20's was because of the spending. And it worked, until people stopped buying. Confidence in market failed, and then came 1929, when stocks crashed. And America went under, causing chain reaction everywhere. For example, America requested Germany to pay back all of it's loans for economy, although Germany had no resources to that yet at that point. Cue in government printing money. Cue in inflation, public chaos and Nazis raising into power.

This is what accountancy is there for.

The stocks crashed because of speculations and lack of regulations, not because "people stopped buying", lol. And the nowadays economies grow on magical dust.

Smattering, smattering, smattering,...

I am not going to waste my time anymore. Thank you, and goodbye!

Who said they're all honest, bristling-teeth guys? Now, you're just being naive child.



Which were caused by this whole "use the world to your advantage" rule you were preaching. Contradiction much?

Decline in purchase was not the only reason, but it was one of the major ones. Even theoretically, it's risky to base your economy just on hope that customers will continuously buy and use services. If you already have a house, a wife, kids, all that fancy household machinery and a car, and you're feeling content, then why would you buy extra that you don't need? Well, I guess there is enough people who would buy phone B simply because it's after A, but there are limits to how long it may work for.

Another way:
If bank closes down, and people loose money, how can they buys stuff to revitalize economy, even if slightly?

Also, ragequit much? Well, truth hurts, I know! Because no matter how much of a bird you think your fish is, it'll never fly. Same with your "economy". It's beautful, but doesn't quite work.

Goodbye and watch out for angry mobs on your way out!

Wait, what? Did he just say the GDP of America is large because we still make stuff?


AHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh man. He really doesn't know shit. We hardly refine raw materials in America anymore. Like, at all. We have a very low amount of Industry in the overall scheme of things.

And most of what we DO make, is made from a bunch of components that come from different countries. We don't actually make most, if not all of them. We just put them together in our factories here.

What we do do, is put a lot of our factories overseas as well as open a lot of divisions for our service businesses overseas as well. And guess where a good portion of the money earned from doing that goes back to? You guessed it, the HQ located in the United States.

And most of the money from Industry ISN'T made from the actual production of components. In fact. It's made by producing them low, and selling them high at the last point they have them down the line.

Which most of that goes directly to the HQ located in America as well.

So pretty much, yeah. The GDP is not dependent on our factories in the USA anymore. Very little of it is.

And actually no, redistributing the wealth won't chase away most of the businesses. In fact, it is more likely to INCREASE businesses in America in the long run.

Why? Well now there's actual money to get from people again. It's simple economics really.

And do you honestly think the CEO of companies get paid proper wages? Don't give me that bullshit. Only someone who know nothing about how the way they work would believe that shit.

You're talking about the purchasing power from the side of the company.

THAT IS NOT WHERE IT MATTERS! Geez. The place purchasing power matters is consumer end. As in, how able is the consumer to purchase the product I'm offering. You might recognize this as part of Demand.

The only time it matters business side is whether or not they can MEET the Demand of the consumers.

So guess what. If there is no Demand, then it doesn't matter if the company has more purchasing power or not.

So hey, you know what would make more sense and is way more important to achieve before that. HAVING THE CONSUMERS HAVE MORE PURCHASING POWER! Because before you can even worry about the Supply side of things. You have to know if there is and how much there is of the Demand side.

Guess what redistribution would do for consumers. Increase their fucking purchasing power.

And redistribution is not typically going "YOINK!" to the money from the top people and then just throwing it out in the streets. There are certain methods and such that use natural, or similar to natural ways to redistribute income.

So yeah Tachyon. Why don't you go relearn this shit, because you obviously didn't the first time around.