Cause and effect, non partisan please God, question

[BDBoop]

What will stop the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Is the middle class really gone? What about businesses that are dependent on somebody other than the rich having money, i.e. entertainment? If things get bad enough, people won't be able to afford to go to the movies. Will the price of movies drop? Will entertainers and celebrities no longer get paid insane amounts of money?

I guess my bottom line question is this: Are we really headed for another depression? And if so, what damages will be done to all those of us who aren't incredibly wealthy.

 

[tessaesque]

I think we sort of just fall into lock-stop with the idea that we're all being attacked by the upper classes.

I am middle class. So are about 90% of the people I know. I do not feel as though I am being choked to benefit the rich. Hating them for succeeding and having more than I do would be ridiculous...I'm the one contributing to their income. And at the same time I'm contributing to my own advancement. I don't have any hand-outs or discounts from Big Brother. I'm succeeding on my own.

As for this "poor are getting poorer" thing. I think we look at the term "poor" and end the discussion there. I don't think we really look at what being poor in this country is like for the vast number of those living under the povery line. There was a time when poor meant a family of 8 traveling from barren farm lands in Kansas all the way to Calfornia, in hopes of the entire family getting work picking crops for .05 a day. There was a time when poor meant a woman's baby wasn't likely to survive to full term, and if it did, still wasn't likely to survive infancy. There was a time when poor meant no electricity, no hot water, and no food. I recognize we have some homeless in this country, and that we have some families with (quite literally) nothing. But I also know that the vast majority of the poor don't live in hovels with no food or options for bettering themselves.

Within a 10 mile radius of my apartment there are two centers for the homeless geared towards helping them develop resumes, clean up, and prepare for interviews. These centers provide two free business-formal outfits and resources for shelters, discount apartments, and applications for federal aid. There are also 30 different churches, all of which offer utility aid, food pantries, clothing exchanges, and resources for shelters and federal aid. There is a social security office, a welfare office, and a bus route. There is a DART office that will provide a free-rider pass for the bus system based on income level and need. There is 1 charity group that offers utility fee vouchers. There are two homeless shelters. There are 15 section-8, rent controlled apartment complexes, 7 of which I would consider safe enough and well-kept enough to live in myself. There are three food pantries.

I live in a fairly affluent section of lower Plano. Houses in my area baseline at around 180-230k and go way up from there. Yet in this area we still have any multitude of resources for the poor. In lower-income areas the services are even more prolific.

I don't buy into a class warfare mentality. I don't feel shafted. I don't know anybody else who feels shafted. I'm not angry at the success of the rich and I don't feel like I have any reason to be. Many of the richest in our society donate very heavily to charities (we're talking billions and billions). While it is irritating that some of those charities are outside of the U.S., I understand. The poor in Ethiopia have it 100x worse than the poor here in America.

 

[BDBoop]

It's almost like you answered a post I didn't make.

 

[tessaesque]

It's almost like you answered a post I didn't make.

In answer to the last part of the OP:

No. I think regardless of economic success we've created a dependency problem that is not easily corrected. We must reform entitlement programs and re-create them in a manner which promotes exitting the entitlement system. We must find a way to discourage poor birth control amongst those in poverty. We must hold parents accountable for instilling a solid work ethic and passion for learning in their children. And we must slow the flow of illegal immigrant workers into this country. The problem is so much deeper than some idea of class warfare. We've created a society of no accountability and no expectations. By encouraging the class warfare argument we merely encourage a lack of personal responsibility. Instead of it being "I need to find a way to make myself successful" it becomes "They're not allowing me to be successful".

In short, a depression isn't going to damage the "lower classes"; they were damaged before and they'll be damaged after. A poor economy isn't the source or impetus for most of the problem.

 

[BDBoop]

And again, that has nothing to do with what I asked. I didn't ask about the lower classes. I asked about all the people who have dropped, and will continue to drop, as costs rise, pay drops, and jobs leave. Or as everybody knows, $40k annual just ain't what it used to be.

 

[imagep]

What will stop the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

Our progressive income tax system and/or death tax. If we do away with that, long term, everyone but the rich are doomed.

Is the middle class really gone?

It will be if we make tax rates less progressive.

What about businesses that are dependent on somebody other than the rich having money, i.e. entertainment?

The are screwed. So are tv programing providers, cell phone companies, and just about every other provider of services that are absolutely neccesary.

If things get bad enough, people won't be able to afford to go to the movies. Will the price of movies drop? Will entertainers and celebrities no longer get paid insane amounts of money?

Yup. Even the "working rich" will eventually become less rich.

I guess my bottom line question is this: Are we really headed for another depression? And if so, what damages will be done to all those of us who aren't incredibly wealthy.

Yup, if tax rates become less progressive. If we arn't incredibly wealthy, we will become incredibly poor. Eventually even the incredibly wealthy will start to become poor'er because they will not have customers to consumer the goods that their companies produce.

It doesn't have to go down like this, but I think this is the direction we are headed.

 

[mbig]

There are several strings on this already "The 21st Century central problem", Plutocracy reborn" "The Truth who can afford to pay taxes", etc, etc, etc
For me at least- this would be very repetitive.
and All solutions ARE political.

 

[tessaesque]

And again, that has nothing to do with what I asked. I didn't ask about the lower classes. I asked about all the people who have dropped, and will continue to drop, as costs rise, pay drops, and jobs leave. Or as everybody knows, $40k annual just ain't what it used to be.

Maybe what you asked isn't clear. I said "no" in response to your depression question, which pretty much eliminated the next question, which appeared to correspond to an affirmative answer re: depression.

I can't answer your apparent question, because I don't see it. Right now, with my current expenditures, if I got bumped up to $40k/year I could afford to go ahead and get into a 90k mortgage on a 15-year note. At my current salary I could do the same thing if my car were paid off and one credit card debt were gone. My current salary is significantly less than $40k/year. My salary has increased over the last six years of "grown up" jobs, but not in line with the rate of inflation. I'm still better off today than I was six years ago. My dad lost a whole hell of a lot over the last 2 years, but he's still better off today than he was 10 or 15 years ago. I know maybe 3 or 4 people who are worse off today than at any other point in their lives, and their decline hasn't had much to do with some sort of lower-class vaccuum but rather had everything to do with living beyond their means.

I honestly don't know what you want from me, Boop. If you're waiting for me to say "OMG, the rich will take over and we'll all be indentured servants" that ain't happening, because it won't happen. But as I outlined in my second post, it not happening is contingent on people changing their attitudes. Taking responsibility for our decisions and making educated choices will prevent some sort of poverty explosion, whether the rich are trying to destroy the rest of us or not. The only way to prevent people "falling into poverty" or whatever is to stop this victimization cycle.

 

[BDBoop]

There are several strings on this already "The 21st Century central problem", Plutocracy reborn" "The Truth who can afford to pay taxes", etc, etc, etc
For me at least- this would be very repetitive.
and All solutions ARE political.

In this folder? I'm new to this folder. So if I do a little digging in the economic folder, I can get some answers?

And thank you, imagep for the direct "cause and effect" response.

 

[BDBoop]

Maybe what you asked isn't clear. I said "no" in response to your depression question, which pretty much eliminated the next question, which appeared to correspond to an affirmative answer re: depression.

I can't answer your apparent question, because I don't see it. Right now, with my current expenditures, if I got bumped up to $40k/year I could afford to go ahead and get into a 90k mortgage on a 15-year note. At my current salary I could do the same thing if my car were paid off and one credit card debt were gone. My current salary is significantly less than $40k/year. My salary has increased over the last six years of "grown up" jobs, but not in line with the rate of inflation. I'm still better off today than I was six years ago. My dad lost a whole hell of a lot over the last 2 years, but he's still better off today than he was 10 or 15 years ago. I know maybe 3 or 4 people who are worse off today than at any other point in their lives, and their decline hasn't had much to do with some sort of lower-class vaccuum but rather had everything to do with living beyond their means.

I honestly don't know what you want from me, Boop. If you're waiting for me to say "OMG, the rich will take over and we'll all be indentured servants" that ain't happening, because it won't happen. But as I outlined in my second post, it not happening is contingent on people changing their attitudes. Taking responsibility for our decisions and making educated choices will prevent some sort of poverty explosion, whether the rich are trying to destroy the rest of us or not. The only way to prevent people "falling into poverty" or whatever is to stop this victimization cycle.

You do realize that your experience is not the universal experience?

 

[What if...?]

In this folder? I'm new to this folder. So if I do a little digging in the economic folder, I can get some answers?

And thank you, imagep for the direct "cause and effect" response.

The threads mbig is referring to are scattered about.

The debates there are going back and forth around the premise that technology continues to provide solutions to our problems that require fewer workers, hypothetically resulting in fewer available jobs for an increasing population.

Basically, imo, we are dealing with a situation where there simply isn't enough "useful work" for people who need jobs. Not because of the current economy, but a more fundamental issue. Too many bodies, too few things that business needs to pay someone to do.

A lot of people here are "exceptional", Tessa obviously among them. The exceptional aren't being affected much. They rarely are. The "average" and below are heading into a future that has no use for them.

Machines and foreign peasants are doing what work businesses are willing to pay for, and emerging "middle classes" in developing countries are replacing Americans as customers.

Its an issue apart from "entitlement dependence", which IS an issue that we need to address, at ALL levels.

 

[tessaesque]

You do realize that your experience is not the universal experience?

Yes. And neither is a bunch of people losing everything and living in cardboard boxes. I stand by the idea that class warfare IS the problem, not indicative of a problem.

 

[tessaesque]

The threads mbig is referring to are scattered about.

The debates there are going back and forth around the premise that technology continues to provide solutions to our problems that require fewer workers, hypothetically resulting in fewer available jobs for an increasing population.

Basically, imo, we are dealing with a situation where there simply isn't enough "useful work" for people who need jobs. Not because of the current economy, but a more fundamental issue. Too many bodies, too few things that business needs to pay someone to do.

A lot of people here are "exceptional", Tessa obviously among them. The exceptional aren't being affected much. They rarely are. The "average" and below are heading into a future that has no use for them.

Machines and foreign peasants are doing what work businesses are willing to pay for, and emerging "middle classes" in developing countries are replacing Americans as customers.

Its an issue apart from "entitlement dependence", which IS an issue that we need to address, at ALL levels.

I don't know about "exceptional" so much as unwilling to accept being limited. I'm of average intelligence, from a family who has (for four generations) been what you would call "lower-to-middle middle class".

 

[imagep]

Yes. And neither is a bunch of people losing everything and living in cardboard boxes. I stand by the idea that class warfare IS the problem, not indicative of a problem.

I agree that class warfare is the problem, if there is a problem.

The wealthy continue to win the war against the middle class (lower and lower taxes on the wealthy, higher incomes for the wealthy, and lower wages and fewer jobs for the middleclass), there will no longer be a middle class. If having a middle class is not important, then I guess in reality, there is no "problem".

 

[tessaesque]

I agree that class warfare is the problem, if there is a problem.

The wealthy continue to win the war against the middle class (lower and lower taxes on the wealthy, higher incomes for the wealthy, and lower wages and fewer jobs for the middleclass), there will no longer be a middle class. If having a middle class is not important, then I guess in reality, there is no "problem".

That isn't what I meant. I meant that the concept of class warfare is the problem. You convince enough people that the rich are trying to kill you off financially and people will either get angry and punish the rich, or lay down and give up. We create class warfare. There is no illicit intent by the rich to financially kill off the group of people that are making them rich. It makes no sense. Get rid of the buyer and get rid of the income.

 

[washunut]

What will stop the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Is the middle class really gone? What about businesses that are dependent on somebody other than the rich having money, i.e. entertainment? If things get bad enough, people won't be able to afford to go to the movies. Will the price of movies drop? Will entertainers and celebrities no longer get paid insane amounts of money?

I guess my bottom line question is this: Are we really headed for another depression? And if so, what damages will be done to all those of us who aren't incredibly wealthy.

Our standard of living has been propped up the last 20-30 years by increasing our public/private debt load. So like a lot of the developed world we will have to delever which will have some impact on standard of living.

I guess the way I look at it is this. In a global economy, how much richer should a factory worker in the U.S. be than one in Mexico or China. That should be the comparison. Rather than compare the standard of living between an investment banker and a factory worker, look at what investment bankers here versus other places in the world to see if there is a gap.

The government can try and close the gap by putting in place tariffs, which is a tax on the economy to allow for more pay to a certain segment of our population.

I am not sure why I have not seen progressives have a buy "made in America" program. There would be more production here if people would be willing to pay a premium for American made stuff.

 

[What if...?]

I don't know about "exceptional" so much as unwilling to accept being limited. I'm of average intelligence, from a family who has (for four generations) been what you would call "lower-to-middle middle class".

Your modesty is charming! I don't think anyone here would agree you are of "average" intelligence.

And intelligence is only one aspect of what I mean by "exceptional".

Drive/ambition, adaptability, "people skills", self-discipline, motor skills, as well as intelligence are all factors. One doesn't need all of the above to be exceptional, but strength in more than one is necessary, imho.

Unfortunately, "getting off their lazy asses" would be horrible right now, with an estimated 24 million unemployed/under-employed. Even more people competing for every available job.

This is an issue that lies outside of our normal debates on economic issues. Businesses will hire every person that increases their profits. Not one more. If everything is getting done right now, there's nothing FOR anyone else to get paid to do.

From the other threads, its apparently a very hard idea to get ones head around. MANY dismissals of the idea that don't address the concept at all.

"Lazy people need to get off welfare and get a job"

"There's not enough jobs for those who want jobs"

"Commie" (or some other response that totally ignores the point in question)

This isn't something that refutes any of your positions, its another factor to include in your thinking. If that makes sense.:2wave:

 

[BDBoop]

Your modesty is charming! I don't think anyone here would agree you are of "average" intelligence.

.
Seconded.

 

[Mach]

What will stop the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

Too **vague, this is misleading to question this way. Either uses specifics, or avoid it.
For example, it's a fact that if $0 is the bottom of the income scale for most people, and our economy is growing, then top is always moving higher because it's...growing, which is a good thing. So the upper end HAS to increase. The lower point is anchored to 0. The gap SHOULD increase.

So the answer to your question most appropriately is:

a. If the economy doesn't grow at all, this will stop the rich from getting richer.
b. The notion that the poor are getting poorer - is based on fallacy. Compare the poor today to 100 years ago, 200 years ago. I think you know it's bunk.

*And rich/poor does not refer to a class of people or individuals, because most people go through a number of wealth categories up AND down, throughout their life.

Is the middle class really gone?

Obviously no, not by conventional definitions.
Globally, it's increasing tremendously fast as India, China, etc., become more economically mature. Capitalism has that effect.

What about businesses that are dependent on somebody other than the rich having money, i.e. entertainment? If things get bad enough, people won't be able to afford to go to the movies. Will the price of movies drop? Will entertainers and celebrities no longer get paid insane amounts of money?

I think the entertainment industry is a lot more flexible than that. Small scale fame and enough for a drink is often plenty incentive for performers, although it ends up more as a hobby if there really isn't ANY money going around. I think there are luxury industries like jets, yachts, etc., investment firms, that would suffer faster/harder than entertainment.

I guess my bottom line question is this: Are we really headed for another depression? And if so, what damages will be done to all those of us who aren't incredibly wealthy.

Doubtful.

**And please no typo nazis AND no partisan hackery Gods please

 

[BDBoop]

Too vauge, this is misleading to question this way.

Vauge would love the spelling.

 

[imagep]

Too **vague, this is misleading to question this way. Either uses specifics, or avoid it.
For example, it's a fact that if $0 is the bottom of the income scale for most people, and our economy is growing, then top is always moving higher because it's...growing, which is a good thing. So the upper end HAS to increase. The lower point is anchored to 0. The gap SHOULD increase.

So the answer to your question most appropriately is:

a. If the economy doesn't grow at all, this will stop the rich from getting richer.
b. The notion that the poor are getting poorer - is based on fallacy. Compare the poor today to 100 years ago, 200 years ago. I think you know it's bunk.

*And rich/poor does not refer to a class of people or individuals, because most people go through a number of wealth categories up AND down, throughout their life.


Obviously no, not by conventional definitions.
Globally, it's increasing tremendously fast as India, China, etc., become more economically mature. Capitalism has that effect.


I think the entertainment industry is a lot more flexible than that. Small scale fame and enough for a drink is often plenty incentive for performers, although it ends up more as a hobby if there really isn't ANY money going around. I think there are luxury industries like jets, yachts, etc., investment firms, that would suffer faster/harder than entertainment.


Doubtful.

**And please no typo nazis AND no partisan hackery Gods please

But should we be measuring income from 0 if the minimum income is always going to be 0? Even during the worst of times, the minimum is still going to be 0 for people who don't work or have investment income, so I would suggest that the minimum income is completely usless starting point for any measurement.

Wouldn't it be more sensable if we measured it from the minimum pay for a 40 hour workweek or from the mean income or median income?

And it's not always the dollar value that matters either, as much as it it the multiple of the income. So if we say that the minimum income in 1984 when I first entered the workplace was $7,000 a year (minimum wage for 40 hours a week) and the top 1% averaged $500,000 a year, then the ratio between the minimum salary and the top 1% would be 1:72. thirty years later the minim wage is not about double that and the average income for those in the top 1% is about 1.4 million, a ratio of 1:93. so based on minimum to top 1% it would seem that the wealthy are now nearly 50% richer relative to the poor.

So have the wealthy become 50% smarter, or do they now work 50% longer hours, or do they just work 50% harder? I seriously doubt any of those three answers. Most likely, they have just become 50% better at skimming income from the bottom 99%. To top that off, capital gains tax has been cut in half, and the top tax rate reduced by 50% (it was 69.13% in 1983 and has been reduced to just 35% today). In otherwords, the rich are definately winning the class war.

So whats it matter to me that the rich are getting richer? Because the remaining 99% of us are not.

 

[What if...?]

Too **vague, this is misleading to question this way. Either uses specifics, or avoid it.
For example, it's a fact that if $0 is the bottom of the income scale for most people, and our economy is growing, then top is always moving higher because it's...growing, which is a good thing. So the upper end HAS to increase. The lower point is anchored to 0. The gap SHOULD increase.

So the answer to your question most appropriately is:

a. If the economy doesn't grow at all, this will stop the rich from getting richer.
b. The notion that the poor are getting poorer - is based on fallacy. Compare the poor today to 100 years ago, 200 years ago. I think you know it's bunk.

*And rich/poor does not refer to a class of people or individuals, because most people go through a number of wealth categories up AND down, throughout their life.


Obviously no, not by conventional definitions.
Globally, it's increasing tremendously fast as India, China, etc., become more economically mature. Capitalism has that effect.


I think the entertainment industry is a lot more flexible than that. Small scale fame and enough for a drink is often plenty incentive for performers, although it ends up more as a hobby if there really isn't ANY money going around. I think there are luxury industries like jets, yachts, etc., investment firms, that would suffer faster/harder than entertainment.


Doubtful.

**And please no typo nazis AND no partisan hackery Gods please

I have an issue with your premise.

Fareed Zacharia was on the daily show last night and they touched on a key point.

Capital is portable. Labor is not.

Owners of capital can take their capital to where economic differentials make them money. Our economy here doesn't necessarily affect them, evidenced by the fact that businesses/Wall St ate doing quite well.

Workers on the other hand are negatively affected by globalization, being forced to compete with much cheaper labor overseas.(which is now moving AWAY from China and India and into places like Malaysia and Thailand as increasing wages in the former cut into profits.

The middle class is becoming obsolete in the US as cheap labor as well as new management class consumers overseas reduce our usefulness to capital.

 

[Mach]

But should we be measuring income from 0 if the minimum income is always going to be 0?

No matter where you pick the bottom it's just not moving like the growth of the entire market. The top is expanding with the market, population, etc.
If Bob works 40 hrs a week patching holes, he gets paid for patching holes.
If Jim came up with a new softdrink and 1% of people want to buy it, as population and new foreign markets grow over time, he gets more just by virtue of the world turning. That's why allowing private individuals to own their place in the market, is so profound.

Even the most simple examples can evidence how it's fallacy to try and demonstrate that as an issue, or as a gap that is getting worse, or any of those other misleading liberal talking points.

So whats it matter to me that the rich are getting richer? Because the remaining 99% of us are not.

Without evidence and specifics, you're just rehashing the same false propoganda.

Today at a min wage job, I had internet, food, clothes, shelter, and frankly lived in a nice new growing city with serious law and order, opportunity, etc.
You want to tell me 50 years ago I would have had it better on the "minimum" wage? I can't imagine that's even remotely reasonable, but I haven't researched it other than the obvious so by all means. Why do people still immigrate to this country so much? They're just idiots?

 

[cpwill]

What will stop the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

Rejoice! this is not the case. the poor are getting richer and the rich are getting richer faster. The average poor person today lives the life of the lower-middle class of the 1970's.

I guess my bottom line question is this: Are we really headed for another depression? And if so, what damages will be done to all those of us who aren't incredibly wealthy.

this, sadly, depends too much on personal decisions made by our rulers. Depressions tend to be created less by recessions and more by government responses too them. It is, of course, possible that our political class will begin to make the (unpopular) steps necessary for recovery.... but unlikely any time soon.

 

[BDBoop]

Rejoice! this is not the case. the poor are getting richer and the rich are getting richer faster. The average poor person today lives the life of the lower-middle class of the 1970's.



this, sadly, depends too much on personal decisions made by our rulers. Depressions tend to be created less by recessions and more by government responses too them. It is, of course, possible that our political class will begin to make the (unpopular) steps necessary for recovery.... but unlikely any time soon.

I shall rejoice. Thank you.

P.S.: Only because in my estimation you don't make a habit of talking out your ass.