Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by rivergator, Sep 10, 2013.
I suppose you could choose a little bit of tyranny to assuage your guilt.
Many people just don't see this in binary terms like you. In fact, I'd wager many people see some measure of equality among citizens as increasing liberty, rather than suppressing it.
I'll bet that rant felt good, but it has nothing to do with the thread.
Gee, how spiritually un-evolved some are who exhibit "jealousy over materialism". I mean, if they aren't literally starving, why would someone have a beef or not feel as fully invested in our society as the country club set?
Those making under $110K will no longer get a check from those making more and all those without kids regardless of income.
It is just terrible policy that promotes irresponsibility and dependency (more to the "poor" than the "middle class" that qualify).
Not a rant but an answer to rivers question.
Ignorance is bliss!
Keep it to yourself or we'll all want to try it.
and that, like food stamps, has what to do with this issue? I mean, seriously, I know you don't like them, but what's the point in this discussion?
and it does affect the middle class. OK, you want me to pay more in tax while not asking wealthier people to.
I'd much rather that the citizenry get rich from their hard work than the government steal it and give it to the lazy freeloaders in our country.
gee, significant point.
"You betcha." :wink:
Your inability to stay silent and make an ignorant assertion speaks for itself...
Please tell us that you do not share these philosophies with your children.
I don't have an "inability to stay silent", but rather actively formulate complete thoughts and then enunciate them. Similarly, my inability to make an "ignorant assertion" - how generous of you to say so - is also a matter of intent and effort.
Good grief river. You asked me what tough decisions I would like to see be made by Washington. You agree to a point with my food stamps answer and now it has nothing to do with the issue?
The issue is the dependence and irresponsibility our policies promote.
And yes I do not want the person working their tail off making $10 an hour trying to save up and start their own business (whatever it might be from handyman to boat captain) or just trying to make a living with no kids paying you $1K per kid every year...
Why should you be paid $1K per kid? Why does the "middle class" deserve this redistribution on the backs of others (most of whom are "middle class" and "poor")?
Not only is ignorance bliss...but being arrogant about it. Well done!
That is an interesting question. I am not sure how much income inequality there is in the country. Their closest neighbor (Ethiopia) has a pretty low GINI Index (indicating pretty even money distribution).
For Somalia, I would say the primary concern is probably the lack of overall income more than income distribution.
The better question in a developing country context might be how should Namibia, a country that I am surprised is as low as it is at 6th in the highest income disparity, control income distribution. It is a very poor country with a city that is more expensive to live in than Tokyo, Hong Kong, Manhattan, etc.
My answer would be relatively simple: the firms that are pushing the growth in the cities (primarily oil/energy companies) should look out for their long-term interests, which are to keep the fields operational, rather than their short-term interests, which are to maximize profits this quarter. Unfortunately (and this is another whole topic- but one that must also be discussed at some point), incentives in the modern financial world are built on short-term gains, as major investors don't tend to hold their investments in many firms for a period of years or decades. They come in, make a bit of money, and get out, so incentives are designed to pursue the short-term gains of these investors rather than the long-term health of the company (at least until the signs of decay become palpable).
The problem is that the answer of many of those on the right seems to be entirely labor market focused. They seem to be stuck in the thought process that if you work harder, you will gain enough to start that business. And in certain cases, that is true. However, it has never been the case 100% of the time, and the percentage of the time that this is possible is declining. Wages are being pushed lower. That means working even harder and longer than before. At some point, we reach a stage where a person can't work harder and longer. Maybe we aren't there yet in many cases, but that is where we are going. If I'm a bank, do I hire new tellers, who I have to pay a wage, possibly benefits, and train, or do I bring in an ATM, which is a one-time expenditure?
More and more, the bank brings in the ATM, which lowers the demand for the tellers. That pushes the number of teller jobs down and decreases the wages for those that remain as tellers, as they are more easily replaced either by an automated system or one of the tellers that was laid off by the bank decision to buy the ATM in the first place. But wait, doesn't it increase manufacturing and maintenance jobs? Yes it does. However, by definition, not as much (or the ATM would be too expensive for it to make economic sense assuming people are either ambivalent between tellers and the ATM or prefer the tellers). In addition, those manufacturing jobs can be based anywhere, not just in the US.
The issue here isn't that people don't want to work (I am sure there are some that don't as has always been true). The issue is that labor pays less now than in earlier periods due to a declining demand for "local" (in the US) labor per dollar of economic production.
I'd start with having the middle class live within their means. If maybe the middle class saved some of the money they get less would be available for the super rich. If you make a decent living, but have no money in the bank and your entire paycheck goes to bills every two weeks you're doing it wrong.
I'm not standing on a soapbox saying this. I'm standing in the trenches working hard at getting out of debt. I've not made the best choices in my life, but at least I was smart enough to save so I have a decent nest egg and I own a home with a mortgage that's well within my ability to pay back.
My point isn't to say if you have debt you should shut your mouth. My point is that if, as a whole, the middle class improved their financial health--which is solely under their control--the country would be much better off.