How do you feel about income inequality?

[imagep]

Am I understanding you correctly? Do you think there is a lack of upward mobility because people want to collect welfare?

In some cases, yes.

 

[Beaudreaux]

And why bother talking about freedom unless you are advocating the removal of all laws, amiright? Those people who can think in shades other than black and white are just weak!

reductio ad absurdum

 

[imagep]

... It was a reasonable deduction from your numerous posts in this thread. You may want to do some research on your own. Focus on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and the pressure put on them and the banks by Congress through legislation to loan money to poor people - and then look up the two laws I quoted for you. Those two together are what caused the collapse, not just deregulation as the anti-capitalists would have you believe. Do your own research. It's free and on the web.

That's the standard conservative theory, and some small portion of blame can be attributed to that, but only a small portion. Most of the companies that were in financial trouble were not even subject to banking laws as they were not technically banks.

You probably need to do some more research on this.

 

[Perotista]

These days all you have to do is to post something on the internet and it will spread and millions will accept it to be factual, even if it doesn't. make any sense.

A while back I was eating a meal with a group of friends and one of them said that what upset them about Obamacare was that muslums are exempt from it. For some reason that didn't seem quite right to me, but two or three other people chimed in insisting that it was true because they saw it on the internet.

The next week someone shared a facebook post that made the same claim, I googled it and found a half dozen fact checking sources that all confirmed that it was not true. I posted links to all of those sites, then was flamed by a dozen "friends" for rubbing it in that the post was incorrect.

Who would have thunk, but apparently it is not acceptable by facebook etiquit to point out lies.

I have never did facebook and do not plan on ever doing it. But like you I have run into folks who read something on the internet and believed it. If they would have thought about it seriously for a second or two they would have discarded on their own. But I think there are a lot of people who want to read or have someone tell them what they believe.

You see it today with peoples choice of news channels, the left flock to MSNBC and the right to FOX News. They get their news with the slant they want their news in.

 

[imagep]

If income inequality is caused by natural market forces, then there is no problem. If it is caused by some type of government abuse (such as policies that harm poor incomes more, subsidizing and bailing out corrupt corporations allowing them to screw people over, etc.) then that is where the problem lies. The bigger issue is economic mobility. If people cannot move up in the system, then there is a problem.

People are different. They will make different life choices, have different skills to begin with, and end up with abilities that may make more or less money. Equity should always be more of a concern than equality.

Some people might suggest that murder, rape, and theft, are caused by "natural forces", would you not support outlawing those acts?

 

[Beaudreaux]

As opposed to many things.

I was wondering what you were referring to.

Like supporting unions.

That's true, but I don't support all unions or their tactics.

Or individually demanding higher wages.

This I agree with completely. Make yourself more valuable to the company then ask to be remunerated for that value.

Or supporting having a more tax system,

I think you meant moral not more... if I'm correct, a moral tax system to some would be seen as theft or income redistribution by others.

or supporting increases in the minimum wage.

This one has merit, to me, but then we get to the debate of what is a living wage, and how will this increase the Standard of Living, if at all, versus potentially adverse implications to the CPI indices that are more applicable to the lower wage earner. I tend to feel that a similar effect will be present that exist with the lottery winner that is broke again within two years or less. Paying a higher minimum wage may increase the amount of stuff they buy, but not increase their standard of living, or their ability to save for the future, or just about anything regarding prudent financial knowledge. Again, I 'm not against it, I just don't think it will actually help that many people. They'll still be broke, but just owe more taxes at the end of the year.

 

[Beaudreaux]

That's the standard conservative theory, and some small portion of blame can be attributed to that, but only a small portion. Most of the companies that were in financial trouble were not even subject to banking laws as they were not technically banks.

You probably need to do some more research on this.

Actually my friend, I did my research. If you look at what I posted you will see that I put blame squarely on both parties, which is not... the standard conservative theory.

 

[imagep]

I have never did facebook and do not plan on ever doing it. But like you I have run into folks who read something on the internet and believed it. If they would have thought about it seriously for a second or two they would have discarded on their own. But I think there are a lot of people who want to read or have someone tell them what they believe.

You see it today with peoples choice of news channels, the left flock to MSNBC and the right to FOX News. They get their news with the slant they want their news in.

Yea, I had a facebook friend who posted that people should only watch Fox News. I posted that I got my news from several sources, and then tried to figure out what the truth was. If one only gets news from a source that is slanted, then it's basically impossible for them to see both sides of the argument, so they have no choice other than just to accept what they see from that once source.

Fox is probably the worst about allowing their "contributors" to tell incorrect facts, without every correcting them. I suspect that the reason they use so many 1099 "contributors" instead of actual fox news W-2 employees is that Fox can deny that "Fox" told lies and just blame it on their paid "guests".

 

[imagep]

Actually my friend, I did my research. If you look at what I posted you will see that I put blame squarely on both parties, which is not... the standard conservative theory.

I could care less about which party is to blame, I agree that both are.

The issue went much deeper than the ARA and Freddy and Fanny.

I get the feeling that you don't understand how the lack of regulation in the creation and trading of mortgage backed securities, combined with an excessive amount of pooled capital, were 90+% of the problem. Most of the remaining blame goes directly to the real estate industry and unregulated lending originators, and lenders that were allowed to qualify loans based on low introductory rates which were set to automatically and significantly go up in just a few years (making the affordable mortgage suddenly unaffordable).

The things that you mentioned are at best just a few percent of the issue.

 

[Lakryte]

Some people might suggest that murder, rape, and theft, are caused by "natural forces", would you not support outlawing those acts?

Murder, rape, and theft all involve direct acts of aggression towards another. The fact that people are different involves no such aggression. For example, doctors require higher education and are in high demand due to a growing population and thus make a high amount of money. Virtually anyone can be a McDonald's worker, on the other hand, and very little education is required at all. Your reasoning suggests that this relationship is akin to murder, rape, and theft. Such a comparison defies common sense, reason, and is completely nonsensical.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I could care less about which party is to blame, I agree that both are.

The issue went much deeper than the ARA and Freddy and Fanny.

I get the feeling that you don't understand how the lack of regulation in the creation and trading of mortgage backed securities, combined with an excessive amount of pooled capital, were 90+% of the problem. Most of the remaining blame goes directly to the real estate industry and unregulated lending originators, and lenders that were allowed to qualify loans based on low introductory rates which were set to automatically and significantly go up in just a few years (making the affordable mortgage suddenly unaffordable).

The things that you mentioned are at best just a few percent of the issue.

Stop getting feelings about what I may or may not think and read my posts. I specifically mentioned the repeal of Glass-Steagall which lead to what you're talking about above. Before you assume what I mean, read what I type which will tell you implicitly what I believe. And as for the last sentence, it was the CRA amendments that forced/allowed loan officers to approve mortgages with little to nothing down, not deregulation, but forcible lowering of the banks standards that is happening again under Mel Watt, which I posted a link to for everyone's review.

 

[Perotista]

Yea, I had a facebook friend who posted that people should only watch Fox News. I posted that I got my news from several sources, and then tried to figure out what the truth was. If one only gets news from a source that is slanted, then it's basically impossible for them to see both sides of the argument, so they have no choice other than just to accept what they see from that once source.

Fox is probably the worst about allowing their "contributors" to tell incorrect facts, without every correcting them. I suspect that the reason they use so many 1099 "contributors" instead of actual fox news W-2 employees is that Fox can deny that "Fox" told lies and just blame it on their paid "guests".

LOL, plausible denial.

 

[Eric7216]

Am I understanding you correctly? Do you think there is a lack of upward mobility because people want to collect welfare?

That is what I was implying or rather offering as a hypothesis. I realize that it sounds foolish. But that is kinda what happened to me. In 2008 I was 58 and laid-off. Now I always liked working but I was frankly content to simply draw my small pension and collect unemployment rather than seriously look for work even though if I found work I would probably make much more money than unemployment. Time is my most precious commodity and I wasn't willing to trade time for extra money. If not for unemployment, I probably would have gotten a job-the unemployment helped me survive financially and have more free time.

Arguably that is what happened recently. Many people lost unemployment in December. Congress did not pass an extension. And the number employed rose by 1.6 million and the % unemployed dropped from 6.7% to 6.1%. Despite some whining about bad weather hurting the job market.

 

[PoS]

While that might be a popular sentiment in this country, I think the current level of income inequality in the United States has moved quite beyond simple jealousy. There have been, and will continue to be some very tangible economic effects of this inequality.

Well the chances of getting rich is still there and it hasnt changed for half a century. The only difference is people whine a lot more now instead of getting off their butts and working.

Economic mobility hasn

 

[joG]

I'll wait for a source otherwise I'll chalk it up to GIGO.

So be precise and say what you don't believe.

 

[Mithrae]

That is what I was implying or rather offering as a hypothesis. I realize that it sounds foolish. But that is kinda what happened to me. In 2008 I was 58 and laid-off. Now I always liked working but I was frankly content to simply draw my small pension and collect unemployment rather than seriously look for work even though if I found work I would probably make much more money than unemployment. Time is my most precious commodity and I wasn't willing to trade time for extra money. If not for unemployment, I probably would have gotten a job-the unemployment helped me survive financially and have more free time.

Arguably that is what happened recently. Many people lost unemployment in December. Congress did not pass an extension. And the number employed rose by 1.6 million and the % unemployed dropped from 6.7% to 6.1%. Despite some whining about bad weather hurting the job market.

True dat. My step-father was a dole-bludger and my father's about as bad. And I would be too, if I could conscionably do so (and get away with it). I don't know how it works in America, but a sensible system (most of which is in place in Australia) should have welfare benefits dropping off significantly less than income earned, so it's always financially beneficial to work; job-search help programmes and monitoring; some kind of work for the dole after too long on benefits (6 months, say); and incremental decreases to the benefits payment for failure to meet any requirements (cutting them off suddenly would be too harsh, and probably less effective as an abstract threat than real week-to-week shortages of money).

That said, there also needs to be a genuine focus on keeping enough jobs available too; and ultimately I believe reductions in the working week will become increasingly necessary over the next decade or two.

 

[it's just me]

Guess some won't be happy till we are all billionaires and not have to work for it.:mrgreen:

Of course, a loaf of bread will be a cool million.

 

[Eric7216]

True dat. My step-father was a dole-bludger and my father's about as bad. And I would be too, if I could conscionably do so (and get away with it). I don't know how it works in America, but a sensible system (most of which is in place in Australia) should have welfare benefits dropping off significantly less than income earned, so it's always financially beneficial to work; job-search help programmes and monitoring; some kind of work for the dole after too long on benefits (6 months, say); and incremental decreases to the benefits payment for failure to meet any requirements (cutting them off suddenly would be too harsh, and probably less effective as an abstract threat than real week-to-week shortages of money).

That said, there also needs to be a genuine focus on keeping enough jobs available too; and ultimately I believe reductions in the working week will become increasingly necessary over the next decade or two.

Kudos to Australia for having very sensible programs that actually tend to solve problems rather than pander to special interest groups with programs that sound great but have unintended consequences. The US seems to have the formula wrong and a rational person who lacks the skills or education to earn really good money may conclude that it is better to be a dole-bludger. (Thank you for passing on that expression.)

And I agree that with automation we probably will see a decline in available work. Society will have to provide some minimum income levels while at the same time rewarding people who do work. And shortened work week may be part of a solution.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Then this entire thread is irrelevant. Why even start it? It was a reasonable deduction from your numerous posts in this thread. You may want to do some research on your own. Focus on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and the pressure put on them and the banks by Congress through legislation to loan money to poor people - and then look up the two laws I quoted for you. Those two together are what caused the collapse, not just deregulation as the anti-capitalists would have you believe. Do your own research. It's free and on the web.

Why is the thread irrelevant? The fact that we continue to increase income inequality is seen as an issue for many people. Perhaps, it is irrelevant to you?

Also, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were casualties of the subprime mortgage debacle and not the cause. Loaning money to the poor was a small part in the much larger picture of what happened. As you mentioned in your other post, the much bigger problems were taking down the firewalls and deregulations that took place over the many years. You hit a major issue on the head but then you contradicted yourself by saying government caused this problem.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Why? It is general knowledge. It is absurd to want a specific reference. Or aren't you knowledgeable of the growth in countries like Vietnam, China, India or South Africa?

I would like to see a reference to see how these countries' gains have been distributed to the populace at large or if it was mostly distributed to the top. I know parts of South Africa have larger issues with inequality than the US.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

In some cases, yes.

I think it is minority of cases. I honestly feel the welfare queen story has been blown out of proportion and it continues to be the cause of all our economic problems by a few diehards.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

reductio ad absurdum

And that was his point. Right back at you.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

That is what I was implying or rather offering as a hypothesis. I realize that it sounds foolish. But that is kinda what happened to me. In 2008 I was 58 and laid-off. Now I always liked working but I was frankly content to simply draw my small pension and collect unemployment rather than seriously look for work even though if I found work I would probably make much more money than unemployment. Time is my most precious commodity and I wasn't willing to trade time for extra money. If not for unemployment, I probably would have gotten a job-the unemployment helped me survive financially and have more free time.

Arguably that is what happened recently. Many people lost unemployment in December. Congress did not pass an extension. And the number employed rose by 1.6 million and the % unemployed dropped from 6.7% to 6.1%. Despite some whining about bad weather hurting the job market.

Unemployment and welfare are not the same thing.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

True dat. My step-father was a dole-bludger and my father's about as bad. And I would be too, if I could conscionably do so (and get away with it). I don't know how it works in America, but a sensible system (most of which is in place in Australia) should have welfare benefits dropping off significantly less than income earned, so it's always financially beneficial to work; job-search help programmes and monitoring; some kind of work for the dole after too long on benefits (6 months, say); and incremental decreases to the benefits payment for failure to meet any requirements (cutting them off suddenly would be too harsh, and probably less effective as an abstract threat than real week-to-week shortages of money).

That said, there also needs to be a genuine focus on keeping enough jobs available too; and ultimately I believe reductions in the working week will become increasingly necessary over the next decade or two.

It pretty much works that way here too. I've heard the welfare queen story and at one time believed that most people on welfare had it good until I got out into the real world and worked with very poor children. It's not so.

 

[Eric7216]

Unemployment and welfare are not the same thing.

I understand that many people think that but I am at a loss to understand any meaningful difference to the person receiving the benefit. He doesn't pay for the unemployment insurance and for him it is simply money that comes in without him paying for it, like SNAP, housing assistance, Medicaid, earned income credit, etc.

The Wikipedia article on Welfare states:

Welfare can take a variety of forms, such as monetary payments, subsidies and vouchers, or housing assistance. Welfare systems differ from country to country, but welfare is commonly provided to individuals who are unemployed, those with illness or disability, the elderly, those with dependent children, and veterans. A person's eligibility for welfare may also be constrained by means testing or other conditions.