Wealth distribution in America

[excalibur]

to make it into the "top 1%" you have to make 370,000 adjusted gross in the United States. I guess that puts my Mom's parents in the top 1% as they pay in 70,000 in taxes every quarter. Grand Father owns his own Business and employes just my uncle....... and he is in the Construction field "oil field and truck fill up station welder and designer"


btw before the stock market crash in 2007 it took 436,000 to be in the top 1 %

 

[MetalLobster]

No, I'm talking about people who aren't where they want to be or where they think they should be.

This make sense, to some degree.

No, I'm talking about people who aren't where they want to be or where they think they should be.

What?! Are you assuming where people think they should be IS where they should be?

 

[MetalLobster]

Interesting, but not surprising since the model of wealth distribution is similar pure monarchy, where kings had all the money and everyone else didn't have much. However in the case of America, the top 1% are not kings, so I'm very curious as to who those in the 1% are. I don't want to assume they are all CEO's, because it can very well be politicians, celebrities, scientist, people with a hefty inheritance or top 10 of CSS DARKLY server 1 and that missing information is stopping me from making an opinion here. In any case, the video does bring up good questions, like "Do CEO's really deserve X over it's average employees?".

I wish the video provided some sources where we can read the details ourselves.

A video that kind of answers my question and clears a few things up.

The video in the OP is not measuring income, it's measuring wealth, things of value that we accumulate. Each class sees wealth differently, which makes an impact of the charts we see in the OP. For example, middle class may hold wealth as a later investment in education for their kids or as an emergency account, but upper class may hold wealth for many different reasons. The video is measuring wealth and assuming they are accumulating it for the same reason, which may not be the case, thus calling inequality and calling for reform.

Also, I can't believe I didn't catch the question "How wealth should be distributed?". So long as the government is not the one doing distributing of all the money in America, the question holds no purpose. The "top 1%" may very well belong there, so long as the government is not handing them the money for no service or goods.

 

[skd_mrk]

Wealth inequality in America will eventually destroy the country...anyone who argues that the people at the bottom aren't trying enough is pure bullshit. Can people at the bottom still claw their way to the top those are simply the EXCEPTIONAL who would have done so in just about any era. Hording wealth is good for nothing...even the great industrialists gave back to their communities (Carnagie, Rockefeller, and the like). A lot of the 1% just horde their wealth and promise to give it away when they die.

While not directly related...it bares some relevance: I saw some charts that compared the income distribution in the US versus economic performance in the US. Short story is when workers are paid well the economy flourishes. You look at the minimum wage in the US and adjusted for inflation is at an amazing low and all the elite can do is insult the people working for that wage and say they should work harder to do better. You shouldn't HAVE to work 80 hours a week to just survive.

 

[Demaio]

The problem is the debate itself. Capitalism invites us to moralize wealth because it equates hard work and risk taking with its generation. The traditional narrative is that you start your own business, work 18 hour days 6 days a week (taking Sunday off for church obviously) and eventually crawl ahead to where you're comfortable and can start to take days off. You've earned your wealth and if you didn't it's because you didn't work hard enough, weren't smart enough or for any variety of reason just didn't deserve it. Good values and strong pro-social attitudes translate directly into the generation of wealth.

The problem is that this idea breaks down on the practical level. What happens when you're working those 18 hour days in your little family run business and your partner gets sick? They can't work, they need you to help take care of them and if it's a chronic illness you're going to be spending a lot of time doing that. Thank god they have you though right, if they were on their own they'd be screwed! That's life, sometimes it's not your fault and there's nothing you can do about it.

What happens when you're born to parents who spend their money on alcohol, heroin and gambling? You starve, you live in bad neighborhoods and you drop out of school because you need the extra income to put food on the table. You work crappy jobs forever because you never got a chance to make it to the starting line. It's not fair, life isn't fair. You can't moralize wealth because there are plenty of people who, through no fault of their own, are unable to generate a reasonable income. Just as there are people who are rich through luck and predation. Every income bracket has hard workers and lucky idiots and as much as you can draw parallels between strong social tendencies and wealth, it's not the only factor.

Wealth distribution in America is, ultimately, a debate between libertarianism and socialism (sadly, I feel the need to point out that socialism is a social system, not an economic one. It's fully compatible with both democracy (political) and capitalism(economic)). Libertarianism is the idea that you get what you've earned, for good or for ill. Socialism says that life isn't fair but we should all dig deep in our pockets and try to make it so. Both systems have their faults, libertarianism produces predators and socialism produces leaches, but I will point out that every great society in all of history has been founded on the moral idea that the strong protect the weak.

 

[Cock]

I guess it depends what you mean by "good values"

As an example; Corporate personhood.
Corporations do not have moral values, and the people who run them care only about money. Their sole purpose is to find ways to screw/avoid/ignore current laws to make money.

Demaio good post over all.

 

[Steve]

I guess it depends what you mean by "good values"

As an example; Corporate personhood.
Corporations do not have moral values, and the people who run them care only about money. Their sole purpose is to find ways to screw/avoid/ignore current laws to make money. T

Demaio good post over all.

That's a blatant generalization. There are corporations that operate strict moral codes and the people who run them created them and enforce them.

Not to say all do that. The corporation I work for is highly unethical. That being said I don't want it closed down. It survives as a business and a source of food and shelter for me only because of its shrewed business practices. Raise minimum wage from 7.25 to 12 and this company will be closed in 6months or laying off the majority of us workers. And no, most of the guys at my work are not worth more than 7 an hour. I started at that same shit wage and have since doubled by pay by making myself an asset to the company. Survival isn't a inherent right. You must fight for it just like you ancestors did in the past.

 

[Leroy]

The whole, "Corporation personhood" thing bothers me on a pragmatic level. What problem were they trying to solve? Was there any other way around the problem?

 

[Cock]

That's a blatant generalization. There are corporations that operate strict moral codes and the people who run them created them and enforce them.

And these moral corporations would be....?

Survival isn't a inherent right. You must fight for it just like you ancestors did in the past.

being lucky is more important then how much you fight for it.

 

[Demaio]

The whole, "Corporation personhood" thing bothers me on a pragmatic level. What problem were they trying to solve? Was there any other way around the problem?

The problem was that corporations were donating vast sums of money to political candidates, which was highly illegal. The only other solution was to prosecute the offenders.
Honestly declaring businesses sentient beings was probably the easiest way to do it.

 

[TurboTaco]

The problem was that corporations were donating vast sums of money to political candidates, which was highly illegal. The only other solution was to prosecute the offenders.
Honestly declaring businesses sentient beings was probably the easiest way to do it.

It's not illegal for corps to donate large sums of money to political parties in the states lol.

 

[BIOP]

My parents are in the top 2% in the U.S. pushing into the 1% and they have worked their asses off to get where they are. You see all these people growing up while going to school not doing the work, not making the right decisions. It's no wonder they don't amount to anything. People are lazy and if they can get by on the dime of others they will. Some of these people even feel entitled to shit which is ridiculous and now they are saying the wealthy hasn't done shit for them or they have too much money. They are ignorant to their situation and choices, their lives are the result of their terrible choices that they don't want to own up to. Success doesn't grow on trees, if you want a lot of money make something everyone will want/need/use or work your way up in the food chain.

Ugghhhh I had a long response to this, but then I realized I would have offended you greatly, so I deleted it.

 

[Steve]

Biop is your typical liberal.

 

[BIOP]

Biop is your typical liberal.

I'm no fucking liberal!

 

[Xilorator]

Ugghhhh I had a long response to this, but then I realized I would have offended you greatly, so I deleted it.

Go for it, threads ancient. Don't care.

 

[TinanaBoa]

Here is a quick video 'wealth distrubution' This is a modern movement of wealth distribution within the past 50 years.
Middle class??- there is of course no middle class anymore!!

edit- video deleted- it was already posted by OP

 

[Fork Included]

My parents are in the top 2% in the U.S. pushing into the 1% and they have worked their asses off to get where they are. You see all these people growing up while going to school not doing the work, not making the right decisions. It's no wonder they don't amount to anything. People are lazy and if they can get by on the dime of others they will. Some of these people even feel entitled to shit which is ridiculous and now they are saying the wealthy hasn't done shit for them or they have too much money. They are ignorant to their situation and choices, their lives are the result of their terrible choices that they don't want to own up to. Success doesn't grow on trees, if you want a lot of money make something everyone will want/need/use or work your way up in the food chain.

please define "working their assess off"

they either invented something revolutionary or they tapped into a market that simply didn’t exist at the time.

Both things are becoming EXTREAMLY difficult in the modern age because of:

1. Patent laws: try to invent something that hasn’t been invented. Even if you think of something that’s not out on the market doesn’t mean the rights to the production of something similar aren’t stored in some vault. Try to build something anyway and get a nice C&D letter in the mail
2. Economies of scale. Laws, those in the US in particular, have been rectified and enacted that fuck over small businesses. It is becoming increasingly difficult to enter any worth-while industry and even HOPE of competing. Most fail. Those that survive or make it through aren’t gold mines by any means.

So while your folks may have worked hard, I can guarantee you that should they put in the same effort TODAY as they did back then, they’d most likely fail.

Which IS THE ARGUMENT.

Hard work is no longer enough.

Working hard will not provide you with a nest egg

Working hard will provide you with a barely average lifestyle, and that’s with TWO people working. And if you don’t own property, you won’t until you reach retirement age.

Being a shitty worker is no longer enough to even provide a shitty lifestyle. Shitty workers now must hold 2 or 3 shitty jobs to BARELY SURVIVE. Far as I’m concerned that’s slave labour.


The only thing that will generate vast amount of capital in today’s economy is vast amounts of capital. Hard Work is only good to keep you afloat.

The only way to break through is to start your own business. But aside from the two VERY STRONG deterrents I mentioned earlier, the other is the simple fact that not everyone is an entrepreneur

This is a social fact that EVERYONE who calls us “commies” chooses to BLINDLY ignore. Not everyone wants to be a boss. Not everyone wants to deal with other people. Just like not everyone is cut out to be a pilot or a scientist.

Does that mean that these people don’t deserve a chance at leaving a single-income life where they can support a normal mortgage and put a child or two through college?

This used to be NORMAL, today this is LUXURY.

Before people could pick a profession and work for someone else. They never made millions but they made enough to live a happy life.


So quit talking about what people USED TO DO, because the reality of today’s world is radically different.


All argument aside, if your family is in the top 2%, can you please donate a few grand to TD and keep us afloat for the next 5 years? Thanks.

 

[Fork Included]

However I don't agree with it, I don't see why it shouldn't happen, really. The owner's of companies are the ones who generate business, revenue, create jobs for others etc., essentially make money circulate to make the world go round.

they do no such thing.

as soon as you have DEPARTMENTS worth of people doing very specific things, i don't see how you can ever attribute success to a single person.

when you have entire HR departments in charge of hiring and firing people, the people who, at the end of the day, ALLOW your company to generate wealth, how can any one person at the top take credit for it? They didn't choose who works for them, a whole department did, and they did a good job.

i'm sorry BJ, but your point of view has no logical base when it comes to multi-national corporations with THOUSANDS of employees and whose original founders have long since stopped to do anything remotely related to it's every day operation or have have simpel died.

 

[TinanaBoa]

However I don't agree with it, I don't see why it shouldn't happen, really. The owner's of companies are the ones who generate business, revenue, create jobs for others etc., essentially make money circulate to make the world go round.

Essentially topographies like this ^^ are akin to pyramid schemes.
The lucky guy at the top makes all the money but its really the supporting caste of people at the bottom who are doing 100% of the work.

 

[OG buckshot jr]

I understand your points, and they're correct in my opinion. What I mean to have implied is this: If I come up with an idea, a business, whatever it may be, that enables a company to be made and jobs to be created - regardless of who hired who, and regardless of departments - I deserve to make the most money in that company. I made that all happen. Without my brain, my idea, my business plan (or whatever it is), no one would have been there. That's what I'm saying.