Wealth Inequality Hurting Economy (duh)

[KD in CA]

Wait, that wasn't obvious to everyone else?

 

That this was another pointless thread started by an idiot? Yes I think that was obvious to everyone right away.

[Tiberius]

The economy is still weak, unemployment is still high, GDP actually dropped earlier this year and our infrastructure is still in the *****. The stimulus is like taking a shot of whiskey. It goes through your body and you feel good for a bit but then the effects wear off and you're again singing the blues.

 

Now give me the numbers I asked for that show it has worked long term.

So we needed a bigger "shot" right? It's like the New Deal didn't get us out of the Depression but massive World War Two spending did. You are right, we need a lot more stimulous spending on infrastructure. We agree!

[Dorkington]

Income inequality only really becomes a problem when access to basic goods, services, and blue collar jobs, becomes difficult. Right now it is getting more difficult for lower classes to put food on the table, take care of healthcare, put kids through school (there's increasingly few jobs that don't require college education).

 

I think if we had a single payer healthcare system, and we reigned in college costs/did a better job of pushing people to trade schools for certain working fields, we'd go a long way towards boosting lower classes. Also, minimum wage should probably keep pace with cost of living adjustments, that just seems like common sense.

 

None of this really requires a giant income redistribution model. Healthcare changeover would go from private costs, to public costs, and end up covering more people (since middle man profit would be taken out of the equation), trade schools and school loan reform would set less 20 year olds back when they enter the "real working world", minimum wage adjustments would also lift strain, while not costing companies too much (price of goods would go up cents on the dollar from studies I've seen).

 

The problem is making some of these things happen would take cooperation from many lobbyists in DC, and frankly that's not likely. So we'll just continue going down this road, and blaming every President in office until something gives.

[IDBillzFan]

The problem is making some of these things happen would take cooperation from many lobbyists in DC, and frankly that's not likely.

 

Wrong. The problem is getting people off their lazy fat asses to go to trade school, or take a job they consider beneath them while collecting free money and food from the rest of the country.

 

The first step...the first real step...is to phase out welfare, etc., by making those on the low end of the scale prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they need the handouts. I'm not saying eliminate them completely. I'm saying (as Dennis Miller puts it) we should only help the helpless, not the clueless.

 

Then we drug test before they qualify. Then when they do qualify, we put them to work doing the crap civil jobs they consider beneath them; pick up trash, clean public rest rooms, scrub graffiti off walls.

 

Do this, and then let's see how difficult is is for the lower classes to get motivated to lift themselves up.

[Nanker]

If wealth inequality is such a problem here in the US, then why is Obama opening up the floodgates for millions of unskilled, uneducated, poor people who don't speak our language, nor share our culture, and immediately become wards of the state with little chance to find meaningful employment or make a meaningful contribution to our society? The answer is that he wants the wealth disparity to increase. He thinks that blacks in this country aren't poor enough.

[IDBillzFan]

If wealth inequality is such a problem here in the US, then why is Obama opening up the floodgates for millions of unskilled, uneducated, poor people who don't speak our language, nor share our culture, and immediately become wards of the state with little chance to find meaningful employment or make a meaningful contribution to our society? The answer is that he wants the wealth disparity to increase. He thinks that blacks in this country aren't poor enough.

 

More likely, Obama probably thinks that if he fills the country with people poorer and less educated than inner-city blacks, then he can tell inner-city blacks he's helped raise their status in the world.

 

"When I came into office, inner city blacks were the poorest people in our country. But not any more..."

[Azalin]

Right now it is getting more difficult for lower classes to put food on the table, take care of healthcare, put kids through school (there's increasingly few jobs that don't require college education).

.

 

with the increased availability to extended welfare benefits and Obamacare, the lower classes should have access to putting even more food on the table than before, and guaranteed free access to healthcare. as long as they get a GED, they also have guaranteed student loans at their disposal. to say otherwise is simply not true.

 

all you can ever do for someone is offer them assistance and an opportunity. it takes personal responsibility, work, and perseverance to succeed.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Azalin

[Tiberius]

Wrong. The problem is getting people off their lazy fat asses to go to trade school, or take a job they consider beneath them while collecting free money and food from the rest of the country.

 

The first step...the first real step...is to phase out welfare, etc., by making those on the low end of the scale prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they need the handouts. I'm not saying eliminate them completely. I'm saying (as Dennis Miller puts it) we should only help the helpless, not the clueless.

 

Then we drug test before they qualify. Then when they do qualify, we put them to work doing the crap civil jobs they consider beneath them; pick up trash, clean public rest rooms, scrub graffiti off walls.

 

Do this, and then let's see how difficult is is for the lower classes to get motivated to lift themselves up.

Actually, pay is so low for many that are working they have to get food stamps just to put food on the table.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2014/04/walmart_employees_on_food_stamps_their_wages_aren_t_enough_to_get_by.html

[jjamie12]

The problem is making some of these things happen would take cooperation from many lobbyists in DC, and frankly that's not likely. So we'll just continue going down this road, and blaming every President in office until something gives.

If you want lobbyists out, just vote every incumbent out, every time. People keep wanting to write new rules about money and lobbyists and donations and blaming this or that. The mechanism is already in place! We get the government we deserve. [/ thread hijack]

Edited August 8, 2014 by jjamie12

[3rdnlng]

If you want lobbyists out, just vote every incumbent out, every time. People keep wanting to write new rules about money and lobbyists and donations and blaming this or that. The mechanism is already in place! We get the government we deserve. [/ thread hijack]

 

What, and create more lobbyists?

[Nanker]

We spend tens of millions of dollars a year to advertise food stamps.

[TakeYouToTasker]

So we needed a bigger "shot" right? It's like the New Deal didn't get us out of the Depression but massive World War Two spending did. You are right, we need a lot more stimulous spending on infrastructure. We agree!

World War II spending did not get us out of the Great Depression. The fact that, because of our geographic location, we were the only remaining industrial and manufacturing base remaining on the globe after the War was over got us out of the Great Depression.

 

If war really created jobs, the smartest thing any two nations could do would be to spend trillions of dollars on massive navies, move them out into the middle of the ocean, remove the personel, and then sink them.

 

Do you really believe that's the way to prosperity?

[KD in CA]

We spend tens of millions of dollars a year to advertise food stamps.

 

Now add in all the state and local spending on welfare advertising.

 

 

"It creates jobs!!" [\gatortard]

[Tiberius]

World War II spending did not get us out of the Great Depression. The fact that, because of our geographic location, we were the only remaining industrial and manufacturing base remaining on the globe after the War was over got us out of the Great Depression.

 

If war really created jobs, the smartest thing any two nations could do would be to spend trillions of dollars on massive navies, move them out into the middle of the ocean, remove the personel, and then sink them.

 

Do you really believe that's the way to prosperity?

Yes, unemployment during the war dropped to less than 2% even though large groups of people previously excluded from factory and other work were called upon to fill those jobs. But war isn't the point, its government spending on jobs that is.

 

And to go a bit further, since there was little consumer spending during the war and large savings it contributed to an economic expansion after the war when consumer goods became available again

 

We spend tens of millions of dollars a year to advertise food stamps.

millions? That's nothing in our trillion dollars economy

 

Now add in all the state and local spending on welfare advertising.

 

 

"It creates jobs!!" [\gatortard]

Hi KD, how are you?

 

Hope all is well

[IDBillzFan]

Actually, pay is so low for many that are working they have to get food stamps just to put food on the table.

 

http://www.slate.com..._to_get_by.html

 

Gee, if only there was something a 31-year-old person could have done to avoid capping their earning value at $9/hour.

[KD in CA]

Hi KD, how are you?

 

Hope all is well

 

Pretty good thanks. I had a nice vacation and now back working hard to expand my wealth inequality. How are you?

[meazza]

Pretty good thanks. I had a nice vacation and now back working hard to expand my wealth inequality. How are you?

 

I'm leaving on vacation soon. I told my travel agent to charge your credit card.

 

Share the wealth bro.

[Chef Jim]

Actually, pay is so low for many that are working they have to get food stamps just to put food on the table.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2014/04/walmart_employees_on_food_stamps_their_wages_aren_t_enough_to_get_by.html

 

What type of skill does it take to work at Walmart and what is that skill worth per hour? If you're an adult and your skill is skanning merchandise don't cry to me because you can't fed your family. Why do you have a family to begin with?

[Dorkington]

all you can ever do for someone is offer them assistance and an opportunity. it takes personal responsibility, work, and perseverance to succeed.

 

Absolutely agree. Though, hard work and perseverance don't necessarily guarantee success.

 

If you want lobbyists out, just vote every incumbent out, every time. People keep wanting to write new rules about money and lobbyists and donations and blaming this or that. The mechanism is already in place! We get the government we deserve. [/ thread hijack]

 

That doesn't so much of any good. A lot of lobbyists are former congressmen, or somehow attached. The rules need to be rewritten, and voting people in or out won't change that, when the pool of people running for office largely stays the same. It's a tough situation, because congress writes the rules on lobbying. I'm honestly not sure if there is an actual solution to the lobbying problem. It infects "both sides" of the aisle.

 

What type of skill does it take to work at Walmart and what is that skill worth per hour? If you're an adult and your skill is skanning merchandise don't cry to me because you can't fed your family. Why do you have a family to begin with?

 

I think that's the big divide on the minimum wage issue... the article talks about a single woman who makes $15k/yr needing food stamps. Personally, I don't care how demeaning or simple the job is, the wage should be at the very least, a living wage. There's often talk about how assistance programs hurt this country, or whatever.. but wouldn't a higher minimum wage mean less people on assistance?

[ExiledInIllinois]

See that's the thing about the Walmart problem. They are paying low and then steering their employees to gov't assistance.

 

I mean really, as a business who wouldn't want the cheapest labor possible and have the gov't subsidize your business model on top of it to make sure your employees aren't dead when then walk in to clock in.

 

Sure... Paying 15 bucks an hour, there will be some that lose their jobs because people won't be shopping as much or eating fast food. Isn't that a good thing? Heck, it is already getting to that point anyway with the cost of things vs. what you get.

 

Of course there will be unintended consequences, but IMO we can live with them.

 

I guess systems just hate change and shock to them.

 

 

 

Pretty good thanks. I had a nice vacation and now back working hard to expand my wealth inequality. How are you?

 

Yeah... Working hard posting on a Bills board @ 13:00... LoL... Who you fooling?

 

;-P ;-P