Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > Economics
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Economics Discuss How 90% of American Households Lost an Average of $17,000 in Wealth to the Plutocrats at the Political Forums; And president. Originally Posted by FrancSevin That debt was caused by the most corrupt and greedy plutocracy in our nation. ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 08-24-2017, 05:32 AM
Surly's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Midwest
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,786
Thanks: 2,655
Thanked 2,896 Times in 2,255 Posts
Default Re: How 90% of American Households Lost an Average of $17,000 in Wealth to the Plutoc

And president.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancSevin View Post
That debt was caused by the most corrupt and greedy plutocracy in our nation. The US Government. Of which every Congressman and Senator is a member of "the wealthy."
__________________
My signature line has been censored by the man.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 08-24-2017, 05:33 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,725
Thanks: 9,755
Thanked 14,847 Times in 8,985 Posts
Post Re: How 90% of American Households Lost an Average of $17,000 in Wealth to the Plutoc

Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaGo View Post
The article is pretty vague about how 'wealth was extracted' from 90% of American households.
Income is not a stagnant pool, of which X amount is allotted to each person or group. You want more money, then do something that makes you worth more.
And when people say such things, they never explain how the top 1% has done anything more to justify the diversion of wealth...

Nor do they acknowledge the fact that a person doing X amount of work over the decades has had a decreasing return for the average worker.
It's time for the right to finally admit this is a problem.
U.S. income inequality, on rise for decades, is now highest since 1928 | Pew Research Center
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 08-25-2017, 09:27 AM
GottaGo's Avatar
Sanity is overrated.
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Miles to go before I sleep
Posts: 10,706
Thanks: 8,330
Thanked 6,869 Times in 4,435 Posts
Default Re: How 90% of American Households Lost an Average of $17,000 in Wealth to the Plutoc

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
And when people say such things, they never explain how the top 1% has done anything more to justify the diversion of wealth...

Nor do they acknowledge the fact that a person doing X amount of work over the decades has had a decreasing return for the average worker.
It's time for the right to finally admit this is a problem.
U.S. income inequality, on rise for decades, is now highest since 1928 | Pew Research Center
You apparently believe that 'wealth' is a stagnant pool, in order to divert it. If it's constantly flowing (which it is) then there is constant access to it.

If someone is willing to pay someone else, and the activity is legal, who are you, or anyone else, to judge if the person receiving it has 'earned' it? Can you 'justify' what you have earned? Are you SURE about that? Someone else may not agree, so why don't you just turn over your paycheck to someone who has less than you, instead of insisting everyone else cough up for those who didn't earn it.

No, it's not time for the 'right' to admit it's a problem. 'Income inequality' is a wonderful divisive term the liberal group has pinned up there to rally the masses to hate the corporate world just a little bit more.

There will always be 'haves' and 'have nots' and the have-nots will always find a reason to try and take away from those who 'have'. At what point to we ALL find balance? When we stop worrying about what someone else has, and do things to improve ourselves so we have enough to be comfortable.

I will excuse myself from the room at this point, since this mindless drivel about who deserves what someone else has is aggravating me beyond reason.
__________________
Your life is the sum total of the choices you make.
If you can't laugh at yourself, you might as well get embalmed
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GottaGo For This Useful Post:
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 08-29-2017, 08:02 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,725
Thanks: 9,755
Thanked 14,847 Times in 8,985 Posts
Post Re: How 90% of American Households Lost an Average of $17,000 in Wealth to the Plutoc

Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaGo View Post
You apparently believe that 'wealth' is a stagnant pool, in order to divert it. If it's constantly flowing (which it is) then there is constant access to it.
If someone is willing to pay someone else, and the activity is legal, who are you, or anyone else, to judge if the person receiving it has 'earned' it?
All one has to do to recognize the hypocrisy of some on such a position is to utter the word "union" and magically there are plenty of those who didn't want to judge who will suddenly insist on judging.


Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaGo View Post
Can you 'justify' what you have earned? Are you SURE about that? Someone else may not agree, so why don't you just turn over your paycheck to someone who has less than you, instead of insisting everyone else cough up for those who didn't earn it.
What the hell are you even saying right now?
Who is talking about "everyone else cough up for those who didn't earn it"?
Nobody.

This is about how, over decades, the income flow has shifted away from the average working class worker and into the pockets of the uber rich.
This is NOT a complaint that rich people exist.
It's raising the question as to why rich people are siphoning off more money to get rich while the average working class are seeing their effective wages diminishing.

You are perpetuating the following fallacy:
A CEO, a tea party member, and a union worker are all sitting at a table when a plate with a dozen cookies arrives. Before anyone else can make a move, the CEO reaches out to rake in eleven of the cookies. When the other two look at him in surprise, the CEO locks eyes with the tea party member. "You better watch him," the executive says with a nod toward the union worker. "He wants a piece of your cookie."


Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaGo View Post
No, it's not time for the 'right' to admit it's a problem. 'Income inequality' is a wonderful divisive term the liberal group has pinned up there to rally the masses to hate the corporate world just a little bit more.

It's about how the working class in America is one of the most productive in the world, but it's compensation is habitually shrinking.

Russell Brand has a good quote: “When I was poor and complained about inequality they said I was bitter; now that I'm rich and I complain about inequality they say I'm a hypocrite. I'm beginning to think they just don't want to talk about inequality.”


Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaGo View Post
There will always be 'haves' and 'have nots' and the have-nots will always find a reason to try and take away from those who 'have'. At what point to we ALL find balance? When we stop worrying about what someone else has, and do things to improve ourselves so we have enough to be comfortable.
Again, this is not about complaining about the existence of rich people.

What Republicans don't seem to grasp is that part of the reason the economy has stalled is because the average American worker is the backbone of our economy. They are the driving force.
And Republicans lie through their teeth to pretend he isn't.

Remember when Bush was having economy problems and started sending out all those $300 checks to kick-start the economy?
Did he send those checks to all the rich guys in our country? Cause assuredly they are supposedly the driving force and they are the reason why our economy was having problems...

He sent those checks across the country as a regressive refund to stimulate the economy.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 08-31-2017, 10:40 AM
GottaGo's Avatar
Sanity is overrated.
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Miles to go before I sleep
Posts: 10,706
Thanks: 8,330
Thanked 6,869 Times in 4,435 Posts
Default Re: How 90% of American Households Lost an Average of $17,000 in Wealth to the Plutoc

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
All one has to do to recognize the hypocrisy of some on such a position is to utter the word "union" and magically there are plenty of those who didn't want to judge who will suddenly insist on judging.
Unions once had a purpose, to protect the worker. Now, everything a Union supposedly provides in protections, is already covered by laws. Personally, I don't believe the exist at this point other than to extort and blackmail businesses, so they can continue to exist and reap their 'dues'. As to rates of pay, if you go into a business that will involve Unions, you best understand the pay levels that will be required.

I've had too many negative experiences with Unions to ever belong to one.

Quote:
What the hell are you even saying right now?
Who is talking about "everyone else cough up for those who didn't earn it"?
Nobody.
What would you define 'income inequality' as, if the resolution is to equalize pay? Taking from one, and giving it to another. Rather straight forward.

Quote:
This is about how, over decades, the income flow has shifted away from the average working class worker and into the pockets of the uber rich.
This is NOT a complaint that rich people exist.
It's raising the question as to why rich people are siphoning off more money to get rich while the average working class are seeing their effective wages diminishing.
I never said the issue was that wealthy people exist. I'll use one of your favorite words: strawman.


Quote:
You are perpetuating the following fallacy:
A CEO, a tea party member, and a union worker are all sitting at a table when a plate with a dozen cookies arrives. Before anyone else can make a move, the CEO reaches out to rake in eleven of the cookies. When the other two look at him in surprise, the CEO locks eyes with the tea party member. "You better watch him," the executive says with a nod toward the union worker. "He wants a piece of your cookie."
Seriously? You've just effectively equalized the three people with no consideration for their education, abilities, responsibilities or experience. Talk about fallacy.
Quote:

It's about how the working class in America is one of the most productive in the world, but it's compensation is habitually shrinking.
A person who does their weekly 40, does nothing to increase the company's production, does nothing to increase their value to the company, and you compare them to someone who goes above and beyond the basic 40, suggests cost/time saving procedures, and asks to take on more responsibilities? Contrary to some beliefs, a decent employer will reward those employees who help the company succeed.

Quote:
Russell Brand has a good quote: “When I was poor and complained about inequality they said I was bitter; now that I'm rich and I complain about inequality they say I'm a hypocrite. I'm beginning to think they just don't want to talk about inequality.”
Oh, for cripes sake. One can create an issue, and then make people look evil because they don't want to discuss their created issue. Methinks you also support the Basic Income concept?

Quote:
Again, this is not about complaining about the existence of rich people.

What Republicans don't seem to grasp is that part of the reason the economy has stalled is because the average American worker is the backbone of our economy. They are the driving force.
And Republicans lie through their teeth to pretend he isn't.
Question for you. If a business doesn't exist, then where will they find the 'backbone' to support? At best it is a symbiotic relationship, one cannot survive without the other. Both have to provide value to the other to continue in business, while both reap a profit. A bad employer will quickly find themselves unable to find employees, and a bad employee will quickly find themselves without a job.
Quote:
Remember when Bush was having economy problems and started sending out all those $300 checks to kick-start the economy?
Did he send those checks to all the rich guys in our country? Cause assuredly they are supposedly the driving force and they are the reason why our economy was having problems...

He sent those checks across the country as a regressive refund to stimulate the economy.
Other people's money is an easy thing to spend. I didn't agree with it then, and I don't agree with it now.
__________________
Your life is the sum total of the choices you make.
If you can't laugh at yourself, you might as well get embalmed
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 08-31-2017, 11:13 AM
Mikeyy's Avatar
Enchanted One
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: PNW
Gender: Male
Posts: 70,356
Thanks: 22,380
Thanked 18,872 Times in 13,899 Posts
Default Re: How 90% of American Households Lost an Average of $17,000 in Wealth to the Plutoc

Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaGo View Post
The article is pretty vague about how 'wealth was extracted' from 90% of American households.

Income is not a stagnant pool, of which X amount is allotted to each person or group. You want more money, then do something that makes you worth more.
I am so sick of this argument. We have watched for years the divide between blue and white collar workers get wider and wider. The model has changed and only the right doesn't see it. Companies now spend all their efforts at appeasing stock holders in order to attract more stock holder and the ones who are left out of the equation is the worker. The reason the right supports right to work laws is to support the race to the bottom in wages. It seems to work. Taking leverage away from unions has created a shrinking middle class. Jobs or careers that used to provide enough income to raise a family are now not enough for a single person to buy a house. I have seen the changes in my 61 years. My mother was able to own a home at the beach, a car and raise three kids with insurance and go to college. She was a nurse. Nurses don't make that today. They should. A baker should be able to have a middle class life. A cook should. A florist should. But the big box store mentality has made these jobs less respected and made them all minimum wage jobs. While this has happened profits are at all time highs. CEO's and white collar workers pay has grown and many times the rate of blue collar workers and all the right says is get a better job or do more work. It's a cop out. The right sees no problem with the destruction of the middle class. I do. I have lived in both eras and I am telling you that we need to get it back or America is screwed.
__________________
It’s hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it’s damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 08-31-2017, 12:18 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,725
Thanks: 9,755
Thanked 14,847 Times in 8,985 Posts
Default Re: How 90% of American Households Lost an Average of $17,000 in Wealth to the Plutoc

Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaGo View Post
What would you define 'income inequality' as, if the resolution is to equalize pay? Taking from one, and giving it to another. Rather straight forward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaGo View Post
I never said the issue was that wealthy people exist. I'll use one of your favorite words: strawman.
First off, a strawman is when I claim your position is something it isn't (a weaker one) and then I attack the position you don't actually hold.

That isn't what happened.
I clarified my position. I wasn't claiming you said the problem is that wealthy people exist.

But even acknowledging that, you are chasing your tail.
On the one hand, you try to pretend (despite my actual statements to the contrary) that my goal is to equalize pay...
... but then you also try to pretend that you understand that the problem IS NOT JUST some people getting more...

The two are inconsistent for you.
LISTEN to what I am saying instead of trying to put words in my mouth.

FOR THE SECOND TIME, this is not about making sure everybody's pay is equal.
This is about how the ratio of growth has favored exclusively the upper crust.

Suppose in 1978 we had a CEO making making $250K
And the average worker was paid $48K.
Okay. CEOs make more. Understood.

Over time the pay growth has gone almost exclusively to the CEO
The CEO pay growth has grown ~ 1,000%
While the average worker pay is only about $53,000.
The disparity in growth allocation is the problem.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

Last edited by foundit66; 08-31-2017 at 12:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 08-31-2017, 12:27 PM
GottaGo's Avatar
Sanity is overrated.
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Miles to go before I sleep
Posts: 10,706
Thanks: 8,330
Thanked 6,869 Times in 4,435 Posts
Default Re: How 90% of American Households Lost an Average of $17,000 in Wealth to the Plutoc

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeyy View Post
I am so sick of this argument. We have watched for years the divide between blue and white collar workers get wider and wider. The model has changed and only the right doesn't see it. Companies now spend all their efforts at appeasing stock holders in order to attract more stock holder and the ones who are left out of the equation is the worker. The reason the right supports right to work laws is to support the race to the bottom in wages. It seems to work. Taking leverage away from unions has created a shrinking middle class. Jobs or careers that used to provide enough income to raise a family are now not enough for a single person to buy a house. I have seen the changes in my 61 years. My mother was able to own a home at the beach, a car and raise three kids with insurance and go to college. She was a nurse. Nurses don't make that today. They should. A baker should be able to have a middle class life. A cook should. A florist should. But the big box store mentality has made these jobs less respected and made them all minimum wage jobs. While this has happened profits are at all time highs. CEO's and white collar workers pay has grown and many times the rate of blue collar workers and all the right says is get a better job or do more work. It's a cop out. The right sees no problem with the destruction of the middle class. I do. I have lived in both eras and I am telling you that we need to get it back or America is screwed.
You yourself stated the model has changed.... think about what people feel they 'need' now, versus what used to be the necessities. Times change. I'm 56, so I've experienced multiple economies also. My parents had a middle class home, Mom was stay at home, we had one car for many years, but finally had two, I'm one of 4 kids. Only one kid went to college (out of choice) but we didn't lack for anything, though we didn't have expensive vacations and parents didn't buy us cars.

The house was about 1400 square feet - now-a-days, that is laughed at by most 'middle class' people. The idea of less than two cars is horrifying. No vacation? Gadzooks!! Latest and greatest electronic toys, biggest TVs, etc. My experience has been there are more two-working parent homes just to pay for the McMansion, sporty vehicles, and other non-necessary stuff, than because they have to work to pay for just the basics. That doesn't mean there aren't households that work two jobs to pay the basics, but most of them are receiving assistance already.

Talk about the right-wingers being 'regressive', you just took a good long stroll there yourself.

I work for what I need, I do without some 'luxuries' so I can make sure I have enough necessities for my future, and I help those in need with my time and labor. That concept has long since become archaic for a lot of people. After all, it's easier to throw money at a problem, then to personally invest yourself to help people.
__________________
Your life is the sum total of the choices you make.
If you can't laugh at yourself, you might as well get embalmed
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 08-31-2017, 12:37 PM
GottaGo's Avatar
Sanity is overrated.
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Miles to go before I sleep
Posts: 10,706
Thanks: 8,330
Thanked 6,869 Times in 4,435 Posts
Default Re: How 90% of American Households Lost an Average of $17,000 in Wealth to the Plutoc

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
And when people say such things, they never explain how the top 1% has done anything more to justify the diversion of wealth...

Nor do they acknowledge the fact that a person doing X amount of work over the decades has had a decreasing return for the average worker.
It's time for the right to finally admit this is a problem.
U.S. income inequality, on rise for decades, is now highest since 1928 | Pew Research Center
Again, wealth is not a stagnant pool. Perhaps you need to justify why the worker who has done nothing more to deserve more of that pool, rather than saying that people need to defend themselves for what they are paid. Most CEOs are paid based on what the BoD feel their labor is worth, so quite often, they aren't just voting themselves raises.

The one exception, is political representatives of the citizens being able to vote themselves raises on the taxpayer's back. I believe they should make no more than the average pay of the people they are representing. And Term Limits. But I digress.

Some automatically assume that a worker 'deserves more', even if they have done nothing additional to make them WORTH more. Those that do make themselves worth more, usually get paid more.
__________________
Your life is the sum total of the choices you make.
If you can't laugh at yourself, you might as well get embalmed
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 08-31-2017, 12:39 PM
Mikeyy's Avatar
Enchanted One
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: PNW
Gender: Male
Posts: 70,356
Thanks: 22,380
Thanked 18,872 Times in 13,899 Posts
Default Re: How 90% of American Households Lost an Average of $17,000 in Wealth to the Plutoc

You didn't read what I wrote. My mom was a single parent with one job as a nurse. She went to college at night and it was almost free in California to do so. She was able to buy a house, a car, take vacations, raise three kids. Pay all of her bills and save a little. NURSES TODAY CAN"T DO THAT. WHY??????
Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaGo View Post
You yourself stated the model has changed.... think about what people feel they 'need' now, versus what used to be the necessities. Times change. I'm 56, so I've experienced multiple economies also. My parents had a middle class home, Mom was stay at home, we had one car for many years, but finally had two, I'm one of 4 kids. Only one kid went to college (out of choice) but we didn't lack for anything, though we didn't have expensive vacations and parents didn't buy us cars.

The house was about 1400 square feet - now-a-days, that is laughed at by most 'middle class' people. The idea of less than two cars is horrifying. No vacation? Gadzooks!! Latest and greatest electronic toys, biggest TVs, etc. My experience has been there are more two-working parent homes just to pay for the McMansion, sporty vehicles, and other non-necessary stuff, than because they have to work to pay for just the basics. That doesn't mean there aren't households that work two jobs to pay the basics, but most of them are receiving assistance already.

Talk about the right-wingers being 'regressive', you just took a good long stroll there yourself.

I work for what I need, I do without some 'luxuries' so I can make sure I have enough necessities for my future, and I help those in need with my time and labor. That concept has long since become archaic for a lot of people. After all, it's easier to throw money at a problem, then to personally invest yourself to help people.
__________________
It’s hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it’s damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
$17, 000, 90%, american, average, households, how, lost, plutocrats, the, wealth

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0