I don't know what else to assume if the solution to our problems is just "pull yourselves up by the bootstraps". Seems like there is no room for conversation there. This, after all, was a discussion about strange times in America.
Strange Times
- Thread starter BigWillieCock
- Start date
I don't understand the mentality of talking to people in that tone of voice. They're people, for crying out loud. A kind smile and a little understanding go a long way.
It's also cutthroat ruthlessness, willingness to abuse the rules and workers through wage theft, and disregard for regulations with the exception of how to get around them. People like Bill Gates, Andrew Wilson, Yves Guillemot, Jeff Bezos, and Bobby Kotick are not good people. Fighting to make millions in bonuses when you're already worth billions while you have employees choosing between rent and eating, and you're laying off 900 people on the heels of announcing record breaking profits for the year... that's not behavior that should be rewarded. It's the reason why socialism won't work here.
Capitalism seems broken to some people because some have more money than they and their family will ever be able to spend while others are starving. Capitalism isn't the problem; it's that the cutthroat assholes at the top are OK hoarding wealth and abusing people or inflicting pain and suffering on others to get more. They are willing to do what other, moral people won't. If the system switches to a socialist one, we'll get the same cutthroat as Sholes abusing the system and stepping on people in their climb to the top where they will be invincible and always have the lion's share of the resources (see: Venezuela and China). Ultimately the biggest difference between capitalism or free market and socialism is the illusion of choice in the capitalist society.
I gave an example from my personal life of somebody "wanting" a position but not willing to put in the small effort required to make it happen. I see that a lot. That's a question of character. I didn't call it questionable character. Is that what you thought I meant? Bad things can happen to good people. But I see the lack of willing to do what you can to better yourself to be a problem. Do you have an argument to the contrary to share? I would be very interested to hear it. I am not interested in flippant responses.
That you could work part time and pay for college is a huge difference. Students today can rack up $75k for a 2 year degree. Why people still go to college is beyond me. At over $15k a semester, you couldn't force me into a classroom.
You would think middle class people would be more worried about income inequality, since the middle class is shrinking and those that fall out are much more likely to fall down than join the wealthy. Not to mention all the intangible societal benefits of a strong middle class. But, alas, the lack of political will to hold the middle is one reason I think we are moving towards a third world type society. Every man/tribe for himself baby!
Bad intuition? Came from a middle class family. Went to USC for undergrad and post-grad work (IMBA, CPA, MA in Econ) and built a business from ground up starting at 23 which I still own today.
What I presented isn't radical thinking. If anyone remembers Dr. Ron Wilder from the Dept. of Economics? He was my advisor and it was actually he who steered me to this topic for thesis.
And it’s those people that are “hoarding wealth” and power that force Marxism onto the the population.
Your first paragraph describes monopolists. Around 100 years ago, our federal government recognized the achilles heel of capitalism was that without regulation, corporate power could consolidate into a monopoly, then all consumers would suffer from the lack of competition between suppliers. Sometimes the problem was as obvious as John D Rockefeller blowing up his competitor’s refineries. The less obvious problem is that a mom and pop shop cannot get the volume discounts that a big company can get. Even into the 1970’s there were efforts by regulators to help the mom and pops get the same pricing as the big boys. They basically stopped enforcing those situations, and both parties are complicit. The result is that we now have monopolies, or near-monopolies, and the consumers suffer. Both parties are also complicit in NAFTA, which offshored a now dangerously high level of our manufacturing to one of the most racist and oppressive regimes in the world. We needed the federal government to enforce the rules so competition would be fair competition. We also needed our CEO’s to have the moral fiber to not swap decades worth of intellectual property for access to a big new market and an oppressed labor force.
Everybody keeps talking about "the disappearing middle class.". Again, that is a myth and talking point that has been used for generations. In the 70s and 80s, Milton Friedman addressed it. Here is an article from almost 10 years ago and from 2 years ago Same arguments. Same fallacies debunked. https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/the-myth-of-the-disappearing-middle-class/amp/
cei.org
The Middle Class Crisis That Wasn't - Competitive Enterprise Institute
Recently billionaire philanthropist Eli Broad calls for a wealth tax in The New York Times and fellow billionaire Ken Fisher responded in USA Today with a challenge that wealthy Americans (and the rest of the country) would be better off investing their money in further for-profit enterprises...
cei.org
Yeah it's funny how everyone always insists that things are getting worse, because that would be convenient for their political agenda.Everybody keeps talking about "the disappearing middle class.". Again, that is a myth and talking point that has been used for generations. In the 70s and 80s, Milton Friedman addressed it. Here is an article from almost 10 years ago and from 2 years ago Same arguments. Same fallacies debunked. https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/the-myth-of-the-disappearing-middle-class/amp/
The Middle Class Crisis That Wasn't - Competitive Enterprise Institute
Recently billionaire philanthropist Eli Broad calls for a wealth tax in The New York Times and fellow billionaire Ken Fisher responded in USA Today with a challenge that wealthy Americans (and the rest of the country) would be better off investing their money in further for-profit enterprises...
Meanwhile, things keep right on getting better.
Everybody keeps talking about "the disappearing middle class.". Again, that is a myth and talking point that has been used for generations. In the 70s and 80s, Milton Friedman addressed it. Here is an article from almost 10 years ago and from 2 years ago Same arguments. Same fallacies debunked. https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/the-myth-of-the-disappearing-middle-class/amp/
The Middle Class Crisis That Wasn't - Competitive Enterprise Institute
Recently billionaire philanthropist Eli Broad calls for a wealth tax in The New York Times and fellow billionaire Ken Fisher responded in USA Today with a challenge that wealthy Americans (and the rest of the country) would be better off investing their money in further for-profit enterprises...
This article is almost 10 years old. Check out the economies both in the US and abroad. Check out the negative yielding bonds, stocks that have P/E ratios greater than 200 in some cases, real estate, etc.
Have you kept up with what's going on with the Fed? We now have almost twice the amount of US dollars in circulation from that publication date due to QE since 2010. That's unprecedented. If you weren't in these highly speculative assets over the last decade, you were losing 12-15% in purchasing power each year on average. The majority of people that live in this country were receiving this crippling taxation quietly each year.
Now have these select monopolies dictating US policy not only economically, but also through healthcare, education and beyond. Most every politician now has an offshore bank account. They receive excessive compensation for favor through a variety of ways {e.g. outrageous speaking fees, insider trading, deals with foreign countries, etc.)
Look what's going on with healthcare right now. Completely compromised. Fauci stated this week that they are now going to need an antiviral to go along with the vaccine. They got it wrong and should have been focusing on the body's response to the virus vs. the virus itself. There's plenty of these on the market (including Ivermectin) which have been time tested and have a good safety profile. You have MDs all over the world using it. The problem is that it's off-patent and it can't be monetized. Instead, Fauci is pointing at a Pfizer antiviral in Phase II Trials which he will eventually rush to market like the vaccines. This is disgraceful.
DAMMIT, My Good Fellow. You cannot clutter up a good Interwebs argument with a bunch of facts.Everybody keeps talking about "the disappearing middle class.". Again, that is a myth and talking point that has been used for generations. In the 70s and 80s, Milton Friedman addressed it. Here is an article from almost 10 years ago and from 2 years ago Same arguments. Same fallacies debunked. https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/the-myth-of-the-disappearing-middle-class/amp/
The Middle Class Crisis That Wasn't - Competitive Enterprise Institute
Recently billionaire philanthropist Eli Broad calls for a wealth tax in The New York Times and fellow billionaire Ken Fisher responded in USA Today with a challenge that wealthy Americans (and the rest of the country) would be better off investing their money in further for-profit enterprises...
We've talked about this...
You include an article that talks about inclusion of government benefits as a positive to keep people from being at the absolute bottom as support that things are going well? It’s seems a little odd to talk about how well off people are while then extolling the virtues of government benefits.Everybody keeps talking about "the disappearing middle class.". Again, that is a myth and talking point that has been used for generations. In the 70s and 80s, Milton Friedman addressed it. Here is an article from almost 10 years ago and from 2 years ago Same arguments. Same fallacies debunked. https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/the-myth-of-the-disappearing-middle-class/amp/
The Middle Class Crisis That Wasn't - Competitive Enterprise Institute
Recently billionaire philanthropist Eli Broad calls for a wealth tax in The New York Times and fellow billionaire Ken Fisher responded in USA Today with a challenge that wealthy Americans (and the rest of the country) would be better off investing their money in further for-profit enterprises...
On the flip side here is an article explaining how wage increases haven’t matched inflation.
Redirect Notice
www.google.com
Fair point about government benefits, but the resulting truth is still the truth. "The disappearing middle class" is a partisan talking point that resonates amongst the disenchanted (which is a growing number), but it's not actually true. The middle can't disappear. There either is a growing lower economic class or a growing upper economic class. Truth is that the criteria has changed and, if you use the old criteria, it is the latter.
Sure. If you move the goalposts and continue to redefine the "middle class," it will remain. Maybe this discussion should be about the widening wealth gap vs. defining any particular economic class.
Top 1% Of U.S. Households Now Hold 15 Times More Wealth Than Bottom 50% Combined
https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/chart/#quarter:119;series:Assets;demographic:networth;population:all;units:levels;range:2005.2,2020.2It’s not that it’s “disappearing” as though it is no longer in existence. By definition there will always be a bottom, middle and top. The question is what does being in the middle do for you and the bottom line is being in the middle today doesn’t put you in as good of a position financially as it did 50 years ago.
I like your premise, but don't agree with your conclusion. The standard of living for the middle is so much better today than in 1971. Every argument I see about the middle class languishing rests on two arguments: (1) a comparison of the gap between them and the top 1%; or (2) the loss of union manufacturing jobs. The first point is inarguable, but also irrelevant (except politically, of course). The second point is simply a function of macro economics. But my family came from that union manufacturing background. Those times are so ridiculously hyped as some kind of mythical shangri la that it really makes me sick. Those were hard times that, frankly, sucked and were more defined by conflict, hazards, and health issues than the politicians will ever admit. (Manufacturing environments today are so much better, more humane, and safer). Through hard work and a strong educational ethic of the generations before me, my family adapted to the newer economy. We're nothing special, and the opportunities my family have are available to most. But whether my family is better off comparatively than it was 50 years ago has nothing (directly) to do with how the Bezos and Gates family is doing. Envy is good politics, but show me the data that says that, on real (not comparative) terms, the middle class is worse off. I think you'll find that they rest on the two arguments I have cited.
And, this is exactly the point.
If you look at what was "Middle Class" in 1971. That would be considered "Lower Class" in 2021.
The normal Middle Class residence had ONE car. Now, they have a minimum of two...MINIMUM. The usual residence in 1971 was 2/3 BR and ONE Bathroom. The majority of families that claim Middle Class status have at least TWO Bathrooms. I won't even go into Square Footage or Garages.
I'm hearing WHINING from one side of this argument about "Moving Goalposts". Pick a supposed definition of a term and stick with it.
Picked one straight from the FED in the chart above. Seems pretty straightforward. Thoughts?
In response to the remainder:
Debt in America is out of control.
$1.5 trillion in student loans.
$1.4 trillion in car loans.
$10.5 trillion in mortgages.
There are plenty of studies that have shown that wages in the US have not grown to match increases in costs of living. Tracking wage growth is a constant and there isn’t a single study that will show that things have moved along steadily over the years. They will all show that wages at the top end have moved at a rapid pace while wages at the middle and below are basically stagnant. That has nothing to do with envy it is just simple reality of finances in the US.
All of that may be true but when you use the words "fair share" you lable yourself.
Fair share is an argument of the socialist/communist. What they, and you, are actually saying is that you know better what I and others should have and you'll be glad to handle the distribution.
If you built wealth and feel like some with less deserve more then you should start with giving yours away until you reach the level of those that concern you.
Do you have any theories on Wealth Redistribution that don't include Robbing other U.S. Citizens Blind?
I just don't understand the wont of Liberals of punishing someone for succeeding while using legal means. If that bothers you that much. Work to change the law to prevent someone from procuring wealth.
But, by all means, continue the usual Liberal path and create a "Hit List" of individuals who were successful in the eyes of American Law.
You’re taking about lifestyles which isn’t a definition of the middle class. Middle class is a strict definition of people whose income is around the mid income level of the US incomes.
I haven't use the words "fair share" or anything close to that in this discussion. You're totally missing the point.
If you or USMCatFan want to provide any shred of information that supports your feelings, let me know.
I'm Republican and have stated that directly to you. If you care to peruse my history, you will see evidence of that as well.
I was talking about inheritance and the parallels between that and welfare. I've also pointed to the FED chart detailing the gap in inequality after you steered the conversation beyond the inheritance discussion.
It's you that defaults to this idea of socialism rather than posting anything of substance.
These numbers don't tell us anything. First, student loan debt. Great political talking point, but the actual default situation is often concentrated in some pretty predictable populations. There is not the political will to admit or address it, so taxpayers suck up the consequences. But the vast, vast majority of student debt is repaid. There have been recent stories, for examples, of grad students at NYU incurring 130K in debt for a masters degree in film when they make less than $40K upon graduation. What they don't say is whether these students default. My guess is that many of these grad programs are baby adult day care for trust fund babies. It's covered.
1.4 T in car loans. Is there a default problem? There are a lot of cars out there. Cars and trucks (and their many components) are one of the few durable manufactured goods that Americans still make. So those loans not only support manufacturing jobs, but also finance/bank sectors as well.
10.5T in mortgages. Absent a default situation where the taxpayer has to do a bailout or is guaranteeing the debt, this number could be good for the economy (especially if interest rates are low). The housing sector supports a lot of those middle class, blue collar, lunch bucket and hard hat jobs. And home ownership reduces crime and stabilizes communities (most times). Again, given the number of houses in this country, 10.5T may not be out of control.
Now, federal debt and the annual deficit. Those are out of control!
‘Financially Hobbled for Life’: The Elite Master’s Degrees That Don’t Pay Off
Lured by the aura of degrees from top-flight institutions, many master’s students at universities across the U.S. took on debt beyond what their pay would support, an analysis of federal data on borrowers found.
www.wsj.com
These numbers don't tell us anything. First, student loan debt. Great political talking point, but the actual default situation is often concentrated in some pretty predictable populations. There is not the political will to admit or address it, so taxpayers suck up the consequences. But the vast, vast majority of student debt is repaid. There have been recent stories, for examples, of grad students at NYU incurring 130K in debt for a masters degree in film when they make less than $40K upon graduation. What they don't say is whether these students default. My guess is that many of these grad programs are baby adult day care for trust fund babies. It's covered.
1.4 T in car loans. Is there a default problem? There are a lot of cars out there. Cars and trucks (and their many components) are one of the few durable manufactured goods that Americans still make. So those loans not only support manufacturing jobs, but also finance/bank sectors as well.
10.5T in mortgages. Absent a default situation where the taxpayer has to do a bailout or is guaranteeing the debt, this number could be good for the economy (especially if interest rates are low). The housing sector supports a lot of those middle class, blue collar, lunch bucket and hard hat jobs. And home ownership reduces crime and stabilizes communities (most times). Again, given the number of houses in this country, 10.5T may not be out of control.
Now, federal debt and the annual deficit. Those are out of control!
‘Financially Hobbled for Life’: The Elite Master’s Degrees That Don’t Pay Off
Lured by the aura of degrees from top-flight institutions, many master’s students at universities across the U.S. took on debt beyond what their pay would support, an analysis of federal data on borrowers found.
Thanks for the message - appreciate the context.
The FED Balance Sheet is now over $10 Trillion and much of it spent to prop up the economy over the past 10 years. When you basically double the M1 money supply within a decade (unheard of) while the individual debt you referenced continue to rise, it's a disaster and we are starting to see it play out now.
This isn't an opinion that's really being debated at this point from either side. Rand Paul (among many others) is on TV virtually everyday ranting about it. It's also the reason that ONE imaginary internet coin (Bitcoin) is now worth over $43,000 and will probably reach several hundred thousand dollars within the next 12 months. (unless Congress regulates to death.) Also, they are purposely keeping a cap on interest rates as well as foreclosures and evictions. It's become a grand illusion.
People mention that the middle class is doing better because families have two cars and bigger homes. I don't deny that people don't have spending problems and unreasonable expectatioms, but it is considerably more difficult for one parent to stay home and raise a kid while the other supports a family. Wealth in this country is an allusion.
Then why does the percentage of single-parent homes continue to increase?
The notion that most families had a working dad and a mom in the kitchen also is a myth. But the increase in working moms is a result of two factors: (1) Divorces (rare in say the 40-50s) and (2) more opportunity for women to pursue careers outside the home. Even by 1980 only about 1/4 of families had one parent full time in the home. Most middle and even upper middle income parents both worked.
It’s no longer a 'Leave It to Beaver' world for American families – but it wasn't back then, either
In 2014, just 14% of children younger than 18 lived with a stay-at-home mother and a working father who were in their first marriage, down from 50% in 1960.
www.pewresearch.org
If you did not use this word I apologize. I may have confused with another poster.
However, the words you have used certainly show it is your belief, and you may not even know yourself well enough to realize it
Your concern over wealth being passed from one generation to the next comes straight from Bernie Sanders as does your concern about the wealth of the 1%.
If you have anything to leave your children but prefer not to that's your business. If I have something I want to leave to mine that's my business.
Think we need to throw in the flag on this one. You're not reading half of what's being discussed. I've never come close to stating that you shouldn't leave your children anything. I understand you're juggling conversations though.
