Economic Inequality: It’s Far Worse Than You Think

[coloradoatheist]

That's fine. But you made a bad argument when I stayed on topic to start out. Whether people think the 1% own 15% below the right number, or 15% isn't really an issue. The issue is what does the wealth percentage really mean in terms of what people can or can't do.

Which, accordingly, was when you said the only thing Bill Gates' wealth has any influence over is some land in silicon valley.

To be fair, it was Seattle and not Silicon Valley

 

[PyramidHead]

Fair enough. But the other point I think you're missing is that something can be a problem even if the majority of people don't think it's a problem. In a situation where nearly all of the real increases in wealth or income over 30+ years are enjoyed by only a tiny fraction of the population, there is a sense (to me anyway) that something is wrong, even if--perhaps especially if--that tiny fraction of people has enough control over the media that they have effectively convinced the majority that nothing is wrong.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Fair enough. But the other point I think you're missing is that something can be a problem even if the majority of people don't think it's a problem. In a situation where nearly all of the real increases in wealth or income over 30+ years are enjoyed by only a tiny fraction of the population, there is a sense (to me anyway) that something is wrong, even if--perhaps especially if--that tiny fraction of people has enough control over the media that they have effectively convinced the majority that nothing is wrong.

Or you can have the opposite where the problem is much smaller but certain groups want to make it a big deal.

 

[PyramidHead]

Fair enough. But the other point I think you're missing is that something can be a problem even if the majority of people don't think it's a problem. In a situation where nearly all of the real increases in wealth or income over 30+ years are enjoyed by only a tiny fraction of the population, there is a sense (to me anyway) that something is wrong, even if--perhaps especially if--that tiny fraction of people has enough control over the media that they have effectively convinced the majority that nothing is wrong.

Or you can have the opposite where the problem is much smaller but certain groups want to make it a big deal.

Based on the OP, that's not happening. The problem is bigger than what people think it is. And you seem okay with that, as long as nobody wises up. That doesn't sit well with me for some reason.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Or you can have the opposite where the problem is much smaller but certain groups want to make it a big deal.

Based on the OP, that's not happening. The problem is bigger than what people think it is. And you seem okay with that, as long as nobody wises up. That doesn't sit well with me for some reason.

But the stat of control of a group's wealth is not a problem by itself, which you are arguing. by your definition then if one person makes more than another person there is a problem.

 

[PyramidHead]

Oh for fuck's sake never mind.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Oh for fuck's sake never mind.

But it's starting with the premise that inequality is bad so if people guess that inequality is 55% but it's really 65% then they are 10% off on the problem. People see it as less of a problem.

 

[arkirk]

The S A article referred quite often to a condition it described as "making it." Rubio had us either "making it" or "soon to be making it." I find this concept ludicrous and totally defiant of any kind of definition.

I think Carlin spoke with a lot more wisdom.

 

[arkirk]

Fair enough. But the other point I think you're missing is that something can be a problem even if the majority of people don't think it's a problem. In a situation where nearly all of the real increases in wealth or income over 30+ years are enjoyed by only a tiny fraction of the population, there is a sense (to me anyway) that something is wrong, even if--perhaps especially if--that tiny fraction of people has enough control over the media that they have effectively convinced the majority that nothing is wrong.

Or you can have the opposite where the problem is much smaller but certain groups want to make it a big deal.

Yeah, like the unemployed, the Walmart drones, the McDonald automotons, those who recently lost their homes, those on various government and industry blacklists, those who grew up in the ghetto and could not escape, those who fought for this country and are now not just PTSD crazy, but also on the street, those whose homes have been impacted by industrial pollution sending them to cancer treatments, etc. etc. There is a lot of need in this country for remediation of real problems. These problems occur in individuals here and there and sometimes in whole neighborhoods, or even states.

The inequality of wealth distribution is not just one of money or some kind of benign lack of favor for some. It is for those who are deprived, fundamental and determinant of the quality of their lives. The disadvantaged are all around us. The remedies to all these not-so-obvious problem existences are far from materializing in society at large if it is sufficiently inured to them. What mostly needs a shot in the arm is a good dose of humane values that do not let our less fortunate brothers and sisters suffer. What we get instead is hero worship and worrying about "making it."

 

[coloradoatheist]

Or you can have the opposite where the problem is much smaller but certain groups want to make it a big deal.

Yeah, like the unemployed, the Walmart drones, the McDonald automotons, those who recently lost their homes, those on various government and industry blacklists, those who grew up in the ghetto and could not escape, those who fought for this country and are now not just PTSD crazy, but also on the street, those whose homes have been impacted by industrial pollution sending them to cancer treatments, etc. etc. There is a lot of need in this country for remediation of real problems. These problems occur in individuals here and there and sometimes in whole neighborhoods, or even states.

The inequality of wealth distribution is not just one of money or some kind of benign lack of favor for some. It is for those who are deprived, fundamental and determinant of the quality of their lives. The disadvantaged are all around us. The remedies to all these not-so-obvious problem existences are far from materializing in society at large if it is sufficiently inured to them. What mostly needs a shot in the arm is a good dose of humane values that do not let our less fortunate brothers and sisters suffer. What we get instead is hero worship and worrying about "making it."

They said I can't go off topic, but I am curious at a few of those. Did the veterans of past wars receive better or more PTSD treatment than they do now?

 

[lpetrich]

And last, Bill Gates wealth is what, tens of billions of dollars, but what does he control? A few square miles in Seattle and that's it.

So he's a loser and a failure? That is important news, and everybody must be aware of that.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Here's my guess, and that's all it may be is a guess, so your mileage may vary. I don't thik the average low income person cares that there are rich people out there. Sure, they'd like to be rich too, but if they're even somewhat realistic they know better. What they want is not have to struggle so much themselves, be able to pay the bills, live comfortably, and have a little fun after the expenses are met. A quality of life. That's good enough for many people.

The problem is that low income and middle income people are starting to see that the rich have gotten grossly greedy and are gobbling up all the gains made in our economy. While the economy continues to grow, the average person isn't feeling it because the vast majority of the gains are going to those super rich people. The Walton family having the same wealth as the lower 41% of the rest of us combined is just insane, and yet they keep snatching up any gains made before the rest of us can so much as beg for crumbs, then they call it "class warfare" when we complain.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Here's my guess, and that's all it may be is a guess, so your mileage may vary. I don't thik the average low income person cares that there are rich people out there. Sure, they'd like to be rich too, but if they're even somewhat realistic they know better. What they want is not have to struggle so much themselves, be able to pay the bills, live comfortably, and have a little fun after the expenses are met. A quality of life. That's good enough for many people.

The problem is that low income and middle income people are starting to see that the rich have gotten grossly greedy and are gobbling up all the gains made in our economy. While the economy continues to grow, the average person isn't feeling it because the vast majority of the gains are going to those super rich people. The Walton family having the same wealth as the lower 41% of the rest of us combined is just insane, and yet they keep snatching up any gains made before the rest of us can so much as beg for crumbs, then they call it "class warfare" when we complain.

I agree with you on the first, that is what most people will care about, how they and their neighbors are doing, but not the second part unless they can actually see that impact. Is that 1% that is growing showing up in the consumption people will see? Are they buying extra cars, more land, bigger houses, more toys? In most towns, do you people even know who the 1% are? Could you drive me through your city and point out who these people that are in the 1% that are getting richer?

 

[Derec]

Do not bask in the glow of the man who make exponentially more than your yearly wage in a few minutes, you lazy scum.

"Exponentially" does not mean "much larger than".

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Do not bask in the glow of the man who make exponentially more than your yearly wage in a few minutes, you lazy scum.

"Exponentially" does not mean "much larger than".

That's right. Bill Gates and I make about the same amount per year, and you should not criticize us. Peasant.

 

[Derec]

"Exponentially" does not mean "much larger than".

That's right. Bill Gates and I make about the same amount per year, and you should not criticize us. Peasant.

I do not know your income but it is a safe assumption that he makes much more than you per year. He probably makes 10,000 times more than you or perhaps even 100,000 times more. But he is still not making "exponentially" more than you.

 

[PyramidHead]

He is if the exponent is 2.

 

[beero1000]

He is if the exponent is 2.

No, no he isn't.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

That's right. Bill Gates and I make about the same amount per year, and you should not criticize us. Peasant.

I do not know your income but it is a safe assumption that he makes much more than you per year. He probably makes 10,000 times more than you or perhaps even 100,000 times more. But he is still not making "exponentially" more than you.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exponentially

any positive constant raised to a power.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I do not know your income but it is a safe assumption that he makes much more than you per year. He probably makes 10,000 times more than you or perhaps even 100,000 times more. But he is still not making "exponentially" more than you.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exponentially

any positive constant raised to a power.

It usually denotes something more than squared. And we can find a salary where he doesn't make the salaray squared, it's probably around 35K as the cutoff.