New Study Confirms That American Workers Are Getting Ripped Off

[barbos]

We have been over this a million times. that fact is bullshit. OK, for 1 million first time: You need to look at the consumption, not how much "wealth" people have.

That you have declared it to be bullshit does not make it bullshit. As you should know, I provided multiple independent sources and studies that say much the same thing, wealth is highly concentrated at the top..... a drift of a few percent here or there doesn't change the fact of gross inequity between a small percentage of those on top of the heap and the rest of us.

Your sources do not refute me. They are all 100% biased toward the conclusion they wish to make. Wealth is a stipid and retarded metric designed to do just that.

That some union workers happen to get $100k doesn't tip the balance,

Well, it does it more than CEOs income.

nor does it mean that workers right across the board should not have better wages and conditions.....including your example of Professors.

It gives you prospective on who and how much is actually underpaid or overpaid.

The rest of your objections do not appear to be related to point of this issue, the sheer disparity of wealth between the very rich and the rest of us and the utterly shameful wages paid to those on the bottom.

Stop using your stupid metric.

 

[untermensche]

All this crying that some human is getting paid too much.

When the real problem is some other human is being paid too little.

I distinctly remember some crying over CEOs pay being too large.

It is.

There is absolutely nothing that justifies it.

It is pure human greed and delusion in action.

The CEO is just a salesman. He promises the world and greedy fools that can't do it themselves pay his ransome.

But when you look at delivery on promises it is not very good.

There is no greed in the person who puts the car together wanting the fruits of their labor.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Fake news.

Nah, I provided multiple sources and studies the last time this issue came up. It was not refuted then, yet now we appear to be back to base like nothing happened.

Showing the tax rate was 91% is not the same thing as showing that people actually paid 91%.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Fake news.

Nah, I provided multiple sources and studies the last time this issue came up. It was not refuted then, yet now we appear to be back to base like nothing happened.

Showing the tax rate was 91% is not the same thing as showing that people actually paid 91%.

And showing that some people dodged some tax wouldn't show that the economy wasn't booming when there was much more steeply progressive taxation. Not to mention much flatter pre-tax income distribution, big powerful unions and more nationalisation.

And, no, it wasn't just some advantage WWII gave the US, it was all industrialised economies, including those devastated by WWII.

 

[DBT]

Fake news.

Nah, I provided multiple sources and studies the last time this issue came up. It was not refuted then, yet now we appear to be back to base like nothing happened.

Showing the tax rate was 91% is not the same thing as showing that people actually paid 91%.

It's not the tax rate that's the central issue here. The issue is the sheer scale of inequity in terms of wealth and power between those at the top and all the rest of us.

How this scale of disparity is to be addressed, resolved or significantly reduced is another problem.

 

[DBT]

Your sources do not refute me. They are all 100% biased toward the conclusion they wish to make. Wealth is a stipid and retarded metric designed to do just that.

Bias? No, the studies are based on actual wealth distribution. The sources for the stats are provided. If you are claiming the stats provided by several studies are wrong you should provide what your non biased

Well, it does it more than CEOs income.

Prove it.

It gives you prospective on who and how much is actually underpaid or overpaid.

Overpaid by what measure? Being underpaid may be determined by the cost of living metric in any given nation or state.

Stop using your stupid metric.

Stop making unsupported claims.

 

[barbos]

Bias? No, the studies are based on actual wealth distribution.

You are fucking annoying, I told you "wealth" is a stupid metric, you can study all you want but your coonclusions would still be invalid. In fact I have a better metric for you - distribution of Lamborghini over the world, Top 1% have 100% of them. Study that.

The sources for the stats are provided. If you are claiming the stats provided by several studies are wrong you should provide what your non biased



Prove it.

It gives you prospective on who and how much is actually underpaid or overpaid.

Overpaid by what measure?

By any measure, by toyota wages for example.

Being underpaid may be determined by the cost of living metric in any given nation or state.

Stop using your stupid metric.

Stop making unsupported claims.

I supported my claim or rather argument, you keep avoiding addressing the point.

 

[DBT]

You are fucking annoying, I told you "wealth" is a stupid metric, you can study all you want but your coonclusions would still be invalid. In fact I have a better metric for you - distribution of Lamborghini over the world, Top 1% have 100% of them. Study that.

So now it's a dummy spit.

The world 'wealth' simply represents money, property, investments, shares, businesses, etc.....the accumulation of one or more of these assets in sufficient quantity being representative of ''wealth. ''

Nothing complicated. Nothing to get upset over.

By any measure, by toyota wages for example.


I supported my claim or rather argument, you keep avoiding addressing the point.

You realize that you have again failed to support what you claim? Saying ''by any measure' doesn't prove your claims.

Meanwhile, here's another study:

''This statistic shows the wealth distribution in the United States in 2017 based on family data. The distribution indicates that the lower-income 50 percent of the American population owned about 1.1 percent of the total wealth, while the 1 percent top-earners were in possession of about 35.5 percent of the wealth. The rising wealth inequality in the U.S. has become a growing concern among the public and a common theme in political discourse. In 2017, a majority of people worldwide owned less than 10,000 U.S. dollars, while 391 million owned 100,000 to 1 million dollars.


And another from Berkley; https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/SaezCEP2017.pdf

 

[barbos]

You are fucking annoying, I told you "wealth" is a stupid metric, you can study all you want but your coonclusions would still be invalid. In fact I have a better metric for you - distribution of Lamborghini over the world, Top 1% have 100% of them. Study that.

So now it's a dummy spit.

The world 'wealth' simply represents money, property, investments, shares, businesses, etc.....the accumulation of one or more of these assets in sufficient quantity being representative of ''wealth. ''

Nothing complicated. Nothing to get upset over.

By any measure, by toyota wages for example.


I supported my claim or rather argument, you keep avoiding addressing the point.

You realize that you have again failed to support what you claim? Saying ''by any measure' doesn't prove your claims.

Meanwhile, here's another study:

''This statistic shows the wealth distribution in the United States in 2017 based on family data. The distribution indicates that the lower-income 50 percent of the American population owned about 1.1 percent of the total wealth, while the 1 percent top-earners were in possession of about 35.5 percent of the wealth. The rising wealth inequality in the U.S. has become a growing concern among the public and a common theme in political discourse. In 2017, a majority of people worldwide owned less than 10,000 U.S. dollars, while 391 million owned 100,000 to 1 million dollars.


And another from Berkley; https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/SaezCEP2017.pdf

I don't give a flying fuck about these studies. They are all BS, I explained why many times.

 

[DBT]

Oh, I see, silly me.....every study that's been done on wealth distribution is biased, therefore they are all BS. Nice to know.

 

[barbos]

Oh, I see, silly me.....every study that's been done on wealth distribution is biased, therefore they are all BS. Nice to know.

Yes, silly you. You're finally getting it

 

[DBT]

Haha, comedy hour.

 

[Canard DuJour]

"Rip off" or not, unless the gains from increased productivity are shared, productivity growth slows down - indeed has slowed down since we stopped sharing the gains. The reasons are pretty obvious in a mass-production for mass-consumption capitalist economy.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[untermensche]

The ruling class likes outright slavery.

They see current conditions as an infringement on their liberty.

Having to pay for labor is not what masters do.

Their compromise is to set up a scheme where most labor is paid the lowest amount possible.

And that they call blissful freedom.

 

[DBT]

More;

''THE one-percenters are now gobbling up more of the pie in America—that much is well known. This trend, though disconcerting, is not unique to the modern era. A new study by Timothy Kohler of Washington State University and 17 others finds that inequality may well have been rising for several thousand years, at least in some parts of the world. The scholars examined 63 archaeological sites and estimated the levels of wealth inequality in the societies whose remains were dug up, by studying the distributions of house sizes.

As a measure they used the Gini coefficient (a perfectly equal society would have a Gini coefficient of zero). It rose from about 0.2 around 8000BC in Jerf el-Ahmar, on the Euphrates in modern-day Syria, to 0.5 in around 79AD in Pompeii. Data on burial goods, though sparse, suggest similar trends.

The researchers suggest agriculture is to blame. The nomadic lifestyle is not conducive to wealth accumulation. Only when humans switched to farming did people truly begin to acquire material riches. Inequality rose steadily after the shift into settled agriculture, but tailed off in the Americas after around 2,500 years. In the old world, however, wealth inequality continued climbing for several millennia. That may be because Eurasia was richer in large mammals that could be domesticated. Horses and oxen greatly improved farm productivity—but livestock were mainly owned by the rich (who could also rent them out). The agricultural revolution was good for humanity but awful for egalitarians.''