Are you middle class?

[greg1647545532]

this part is very broken and reeks of socialism. Because your restaurant cannot provide a better product (better includes quality of the product, service, and price) you suggest that we tax and regulate the other company so that the other guy has a chance. That's not how it works. You provide a better product and you will succeed.

 

Yes, of course you're correct, and I should have worded that paragraph better. My point isn't to say that Yum Foods shouldn't be allowed to dominate the Peruvian chicken market, but rather that capitalism, provider of social mobility, can also take it away. Our plucky entrepreneur worked hard and did what he was supposed to do, but doesn't have a chance in the face of massive corporate pockets. This isn't necessarily good or bad; like I said, that's capitalism. When Bob's chicken sucks and he goes out of business for failing to provide a good product, we call that good. When Bob's chicken is great but he's out-competed by monopolistic practices, we call that bad, because we've recognized that monopolies hurt social mobility and are bad for consumers.

[Mr. Jones]

Since when is it a bad thing to be successful? People screaming wage inequality and demonizing success and the rich piss me the fuck off.

 

 

People always want what others have, but are rarely willing to do what it takes to *legally* acquire it.

 

Much easier to point and bitch and instill a false sense of entitlement.

[caseyctsv]

I am not a member of the 1% but consider myself successful. I have ever felt "held back" by the 1%. If I want more money I go work harder or sacrifice more - that easy. I do understand that "to know where it ends it usually depends on where you start" but I have never felt I could not make whatever I put my mind to. I sacrificed partying in high school and college to get the best education I could and have continually passed on easy jobs to advance my career. Should I give up part of my earnings for someone who did not make those sacrifices and is struggling now? (Note I am not taking about someone who is temporarily down on their luck or who is trying - I give generously to do my part for those types)

 

Also, you are wrong on the bible - there is no "moral baggage" mentioned. Money is not bad - the love of money is.

[LJ]

Yes, of course you're correct, and I should have worded that paragraph better. My point isn't to say that Yum Foods shouldn't be allowed to dominate the Peruvian chicken market, but rather that capitalism, provider of social mobility, can also take it away. Our plucky entrepreneur worked hard and did what he was supposed to do, but doesn't have a chance in the face of massive corporate pockets. This isn't necessarily good or bad; like I said, that's capitalism. When Bob's chicken sucks and he goes out of business for failing to provide a good product, we call that good. When Bob's chicken is great but he's out-competed by monopolistic practices, we call that bad, because we've recognized that monopolies hurt social mobility and are bad for consumers.

 

If he has a good product he will not be out-competed. Our economy rests between Monopolistic Competition and Oligopoly which means you have easy entry and exit to the market. Every consumer has an opportunity cost. If Bob's Chicken and Yum both make shitty products, people are gonna buy the shitty one for cheaper. If Bob makes the best chicken in the world, he can be surrounded by 5 KFC's and survive even if he is slightly more expensive.

[greg1647545532]

Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

 

Spin that however you want, the text is pretty clear to me. Rich = having money, not loving money.

[greg1647545532]

If he has a good product he will not be out-competed

 

Yum Foods might also make a good product, but sell it for cheaper, keep their restaurants open longer, and have more locations with which to build brand loyalty.

 

Yes, all of those things mean that their product, when taking all factors into account, is better, but that's not to say that Bob's chicken is not delicious or appropriately priced.

 

The idea that big companies can use their size alone to drive small companies out of business should not be controversial. That it sometimes is a bad thing should also not be controversial. Most of the time we allow it, like 99.9% of the time. But when it rises to the level of a monopoly, we accept that it's bad for capitalism and social mobility and we put a stop to it.

 

Or are people against trust-busting now?

[Lauren]

My ballroom dance studio in 1.5 miles away from Fred Astaire Westerville, 4 miles from Fred Astaire upper Arlington and 3 miles from Arthur Murray. These three studios are apart of huge corporations that put thousands of dollars in advertising and hiring. Each corp does over a Billion dollars a year.

 

Now my little mom and pop studio that has been opened for 7 weeks in our new location has taken over 50% of their clientele. Our revenue has more then double past two months. Our product (knowledge ) that we have is far superior to what they offer.

 

Any small business needs to know their market, what the people want and deliver what is expected or exceed expectations there is always going to be a bigger name out there. As long as the business doesn't try to compete or be that bigger business and sticks with what they do best there is nothing to worry about.

[greg1647545532]

Congrats on your business, I hope you beat the odds. Was it hard to start your studio? Do you think that it should have been harder?

[Snowflake]

My ballroom dance studio in 1.5 miles away from Fred Astaire Westerville, 4 miles from Fred Astaire upper Arlington and 3 miles from Arthur Murray. These three studios are apart of huge corporations that put thousands of dollars in advertising and hiring. Each corp does over a Billion dollars a year.

 

Now my little mom and pop studio that has been opened for 7 weeks in our new location has taken over 50% of their clientele. Our revenue has more then double past two months. Our product (knowledge ) that we have is far superior to what they offer.

 

Any small business needs to know their market, what the people want and deliver what is expected or exceed expectations there is always going to be a bigger name out there. As long as the business doesn't try to compete or be that bigger business and sticks with what they do best there is nothing to worry about.

 

Every time a new pizza joint opens up around me I give it a try a few times but I always end up back at my favorite place eventually once the hype of something new dies down...

 

7 weeks isn't long enough to think you have taken the market by storm. Good luck in the future...

[caseyctsv]

Spin that however you want, the text is pretty clear to me. Rich = having money, not loving money.

 

This will go off track so I will only say you are taking that verse out of context. You had a decent arguement and should not have ventured into this space.

[greg1647545532]

Fair enough; you're right, I shouldn't have brought it up.

[2highpsi]

we can show that the wealth gap exists, that it's increasing, and we can extrapolate to an extreme that is clearly bad (my feudal monarchy example).

 

 

I hate this arguement.

 

OF COARSE the gap is increasing. Pull up a chart of how much US currency is in circulation. If you put that chart up to a chart showing wealth gap GROWTH (as a percentage) over the same period of time, you will see how they correlate. The money has to "land" somewhere, and the top is the only group that doesn't spend more than they receive.

 

The bottom stays the bottom simply because you can't have less than nothing. Very few people will ever leave the VERY bottom because of how they were raised. The only thing that is a positive for these people is how widespread the internet is now. I don't care how bad a shithole you live in, if you are in the US, you have reasonably easy accessibility to the world's knowledge. The problem still remains that "you don't know what you don't know" and if your parents completely fail in even making an attempt to teach you about the world, the odds of you even thinking about bettering your life aren't very good.

 

The middle is it's own worst enemy. The middle COULD accumulate wealth and start narrowing that gap. The problem is that we are all so damn fixated on immediate gratification, and we all feel so damn entitled to "live like the better half" that we piss away the money as fast as it comes into our hands. You CAN'T spend as much as you earn and accumulate wealth. Period.

 

The rich have it easy (now). I mean it's simple math. X=Y-Z

 

X = Annual NET worth added

Y = Gross income

Z = how much of it left your pocket last year

 

Most of these people have such a high "Y" that they can spend however they want and STILL add more wealth hence FURTHER increasing the "wealth gap"

 

What we all too commonly forget is what these people endured to get to that point. Sure, there is the asshole who got lucky and hit the lottery, or the kid with such a good jump shot he's now making millions, or the chic who had a sex video go viral and now owns reality TV. We get WAY to fixated on these people. Forget them.

The largest share of of them busted their asses for decades, and did the old "live like nobody else will today, so you can live like nobody else CAN tomorrow"

 

I'm not saying you have to be rich to be happy. Not a bit. I'm saying that if you blame the wealth gap on the top, and don't hold the bottom and middle equally responsible, then congratulations.... you're entitled ass IS the problem.

[Lauren]

Every time a new pizza joint opens up around me I give it a try a few times but I always end up back at my favorite place eventually once the hype of something new dies down...

 

7 weeks isn't long enough to think you have taken the market by storm. Good luck in the future...

 

I've been in business for two years here in Columbus. Our old location sucked and nobody knew where we were. This isn't a new venture.

 

It's super easy to start a business here in Ohio. My studios in Florida were MUCH harder to start and required state approval and bonding by the state. Infact the state of Florida has a ballroom dance studio act that all studios must be compliant with.

[Snowflake]

I've been in business for two years here in Columbus. Our old location sucked and nobody knew where we were. This isn't a new venture.

 

It's super easy to start a business here in Ohio. My studios in Florida were MUCH harder to start and required state approval and bonding by the state. Infact the state of Florida has a ballroom dance studio act that all studios must be compliant with.

 

Fuck Florida

[greg1647545532]

Fuck Florida

 

Well this is certainly something that we can all agree on, yes!?

[OGRE]

Thought this article was kind interesting but I have to wonder how much the "rural" areas bring down the cities, esp with regard to New York and Ohio:

 

 

I wonder how the cities bring down the average income of the rural areas in ohio. You don't see groups of rundown houses for under $50k out here. smaller cities in ohio like lima, springfield are pretty much armpits.

[kirks5oh]

I am not a member of the 1% but consider myself successful. I have ever felt "held back" by the 1%. If I want more money I go work harder or sacrifice more - that easy. I do understand that "to know where it ends it usually depends on where you start" but I have never felt I could not make whatever I put my mind to. I sacrificed partying in high school and college to get the best education I could and have continually passed on easy jobs to advance my career. Should I give up part of my earnings for someone who did not make those sacrifices and is struggling now? (Note I am not taking about someone who is temporarily down on their luck or who is trying - I give generously to do my part for those types)

 

Also, you are wrong on the bible - there is no "moral baggage" mentioned. Money is not bad - the love of money is.

 

this.

 

i'm not sure where i fit into the whole class discussion. i'm not the guy on the far right of that graph, but i live very comfortably. i've never felt held back by the 1% or .1% or whatever the guy on the far right is. i HAVE felt held back by the pile of deadbeat leeches that comprise the far left portion of the graph---assuming that is where much of the 40+% taxes i pay goes.

 

i believe in hard work and sacrifice--and have done an enormous amount of each to get where i am. i work very hard. but then again, so does a washing machine.

 

let me replay the following scenario i find extremely irritating, but have come to accept:

 

random guy:: hey man, is that your GTR? awesome, what do you do for a living?

 

me:: i'm a surgeon

 

random guy:: damn, i knew i should have been a surgeon.

 

me:: ??

 

seriously?? i'm not going to even go into what it took to get through school, med school, match into surgery, residency, match into fellowship, fellowship, practice---and be successful at it. its the american dream. it takes some good fortune, some family support, but 90% hard ass work and sacrifice. the previous generation knew all about it. this generation does not

[greg1647545532]

Right, I think that's part of the problem with this debate. Let's imagine 3 alternate universes where wages climbed 15% for the top 10% of income earners since the 1970s. (Numbers may not be accurate)

 

Universe A) Wages have climbed 7% for the lower and middle classes

 

Universe B) Our universe, with only a 3% wage increase

 

Universe C) Wages have actually shrunk 1%

 

The differences in these 3 universes is not major. Maybe jump-in-jive had to spend 3 years saving to start his business in universe B, but 3 years and 3 months in universe C and 2 years 9 months in universe A. Maybe kirks5oh had to take an additional summer off from schoolwork to earn tuition money in universe C, but in B he was able to just scrimp a little more and in universe A he was able to plow through.

 

In all of these universes, people are generally going to feel that they were able to work hard and achieve their financial goals. It's really only the edge cases that will be affected -- the guy barely able to afford a 4 year degree in Universe A might become a community college grad with a slightly lower paying job in Universe C. So as you go from A to B to C, maybe a few more people can't afford college, or can't save up for that business they want to start, or save up for that career change that would make better use of their talents. We'll never know who these people are. And we'll never know how many of them are in that 40% that you're so eager to blame.

 

It's all a bit academic, and it requires us to look at data which frankly is lacking. Personally, it seems like a no-brainer that we'd want to live in Universe A. It's not without drawbacks -- maybe the increased wages just led to more inflation, maybe the "job creators" had less money. I suppose we can debate all of this. But simply because individuals might not feel the pressure doesn't mean there's not an effect.

[Mensan]

i HAVE felt held back by the pile of deadbeat leeches that comprise the far left portion of the graph---assuming that is where much of the 40+% taxes i pay goes.

 

Looks like 0.6382% of our taxes go to TANF (welfare). A higher percentage goes to Food Stamps.

 

Per $10K paid in taxes:

 

Military $2,697.86

* Includes $584.30 for Military Personnel

* Includes $68.33 for Nuclear Weapons

Health $2,648.42

* Includes $1,182.83 for Medicaid

* Includes $36.54 for Children's Health Insurance Program

Interest on Debt $1,530.53

Unemployment and Labor $843.21

* Includes $63.82 for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

* Includes $23.25 for Job Training and Employment Programs

Veterans Benefits $582.05

* Includes $252.50 for Payments for disability, death, etc.

* Includes $227.26 for Veterans Health Administration

Food and Agriculture $495.26

* Includes $299.12 for SNAP (food stamps)

* Includes $32.53 for Federal Crop Insurance

Government $339.07

* Includes $46.98 for U.S. Customs and Border Protection

* Includes $26.50 for Federal Prison System

Education $252.91

* Includes $130.17 for Pell Grants, Work Study, and other Student Aid

* Includes $49.46 for Special Education

Transportation $186.44

* Includes $21.15 for Transportation Security Administration (TSA)

* Includes $11.28 for Federal Aviation Administration

Energy and Environment $156.75

* Includes $11.20 for National Park Service

* Includes $8.09 for Energy efficiency and renewable energy

International Affairs $150.36

* Includes $32.81 for Diplomatic and consular programs

* Includes $32.53 for Global Health Programs

Science $112.04

* Includes $64.97 for NASA

* Includes $27.42 for National Science Foundation

Housing and Community $5.09

[Lauren]

Going back to this. I still fail to see how this isn't true.

here's what I have been told.

 

If you are making an annual income of...

1x your age you are behind

2x your age you are slightly ahead of average

3x your age you are doing well

4x your age you are "well off"

 

...for where you are (stage) in life regarding age

 

regardless of number but let's use age 50 then this chart is accurate. At 30 it's also accurate. I think after retirement age it doesn't really matter anymore as at that point you should have a set financial plan to live out your days.

[Littleguy]

Basing wealth or success off of income is something only 99% folks do. Success/wealth should be based off of how much capital you are able to accumulate.

[AngryBMW]

Looks like 0.6382% of our taxes go to TANF (welfare). A higher percentage goes to Food Stamps.

 

Per $10K paid in taxes:

 

Where did you get that break down?

-Marc

[Mensan]

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/interactive-data/taxday/2014/taxespaid/10000/

[Ben]

I hate this arguement.

 

OF COARSE the gap is increasing. Pull up a chart of how much US currency is in circulation. If you put that chart up to a chart showing wealth gap GROWTH (as a percentage) over the same period of time, you will see how they correlate. The money has to "land" somewhere, and the top is the only group that doesn't spend more than they receive.

 

The bottom stays the bottom simply because you can't have less than nothing. Very few people will ever leave the VERY bottom because of how they were raised. The only thing that is a positive for these people is how widespread the internet is now. I don't care how bad a shithole you live in, if you are in the US, you have reasonably easy accessibility to the world's knowledge. The problem still remains that "you don't know what you don't know" and if your parents completely fail in even making an attempt to teach you about the world, the odds of you even thinking about bettering your life aren't very good.

 

The middle is it's own worst enemy. The middle COULD accumulate wealth and start narrowing that gap. The problem is that we are all so damn fixated on immediate gratification, and we all feel so damn entitled to "live like the better half" that we piss away the money as fast as it comes into our hands. You CAN'T spend as much as you earn and accumulate wealth. Period.

 

The rich have it easy (now). I mean it's simple math. X=Y-Z

 

X = Annual NET worth added

Y = Gross income

Z = how much of it left your pocket last year

 

Most of these people have such a high "Y" that they can spend however they want and STILL add more wealth hence FURTHER increasing the "wealth gap"

 

What we all too commonly forget is what these people endured to get to that point. Sure, there is the asshole who got lucky and hit the lottery, or the kid with such a good jump shot he's now making millions, or the chic who had a sex video go viral and now owns reality TV. We get WAY to fixated on these people. Forget them.

The largest share of of them busted their asses for decades, and did the old "live like nobody else will today, so you can live like nobody else CAN tomorrow"

 

I'm not saying you have to be rich to be happy. Not a bit. I'm saying that if you blame the wealth gap on the top, and don't hold the bottom and middle equally responsible, then congratulations.... you're entitled ass IS the problem.

 

No offense... But this is deeply misguided.

 

A. Most rich people alive today inherited their wealth or at least a healthy seed from which to grow their wealth.

 

B. Wage growth for middle and lower income jobs has been largely flat for decades. Wage growth for top earning positions has skyrocketed. This is largely due to irresponsible short-term greed on the part of executives, apathy by shareholders, and complicity by boards of directors and lawmakers.

 

C. Our tax system rewards market investment - not working for a living. So people who have money can make more of it while contributing essentially nothing of value to our economy. (Before someone argues with this let me just head you off. Venture funding does contribute to the economy. What I'm talking about here is rich guy A who buys 100,000 shares of Microsoft from rich guy B, lets them gain $8 per share, and then sells the to rich guy C a year later and pays only capital gains tax on his $800,000 of income). And before we all start whining about how taxes are too high, a little history lesson might be in order. Can anyone tell me what the top marginal tax rate is now and what it was in 1955? (I'll give you a hint. If Obama is a socialist, then I don't know what you'd call Eisenhower).

 

D. Our government is hell bent on increasing these inequities because the same people who benefit from lackadaisical regulation, low wages for workers, and giant tax loopholes are the same people who have money for campaign contributions.

 

E. I just know someone is going to bust out the "job creators" argument so let me just stuff that one right here. Rich individuals don't create jobs. Companies do. There is NO benefit to the larger economy to giving a rich individual more money. Also, companies create jobs based on need, not excess of capital. During the last recession many companies had huge stockpiles of cash but they didn't hire and they didn't increase wages. They either sat on it or gave it to shareholders (the largest of these are usually their own executives and board members) in the form of dividends. Companies hire people when demand for whatever they do causes them to need to do so. Demand spikes when there are consumers with cash in the market. The one thing you said that was actually correct was that poor people and middle class people spend money. Why? Because they don't already have everything they need or want. So, if you want to really create jobs, you don't give money to a bunch of rich individuals in the form of tax breaks so they can squirrel it away and become richer, you put it in the hands of people who will use it. Henry Ford wasn't a bleeding heart but he paid his employees a good wage. Why? So they could afford to buy his cars.

 

F. This narrative, about how poor people and middle class people could become wealthy if they weren't so entitled, is utter garbage. I'm not saying people don't sometimes do self-defeating things. Hell, this is a car forum. Everyone on here loves expensive four-wheeled-depreciation machines. But the story that massive entitlement and bad morals gives rise to 99% of our country being SOOOO much poorer than 1% of our country is a fairytale that the richest of us tell ourselves to mask the truth - the wealth gap is caused by unrestrained rapacious greed.

[Turbs3000]

Looks like 0.6382% of our taxes go to TANF (welfare). A higher percentage goes to Food Stamps.

 

Per $10K paid in taxes:

To be honest with a few exceptions I really wish we could flip that list and pay the most to those bottom items instead...