Breaking: 3 Richest Americans Now Own More Wealth Than Bottom 50%

If your not willing to do for yourself, I don't want you to be my countryman.

Now if you would have said something like...

"The banks are the problem because they hand out predatory loans in an attempt to steal what others have worked for"

I would be on your side. However, that's not what you did. Instead, you went directly to attacking the "rich" and defending a large group of people that are generally worthless piles of genetic redundancy.

It's not bad to be poor at any point in your life, it's bad if you decide to stay poor of your own doing. I should know, I spent a few years living out of my car while I was going to college on a scholarship/Student loan. Didn't have a smart phone, like most poor people these days. Didn't have Television or Netflix, had to budget my funds. I got my Ti-83 from a yard sale for .50 cents instead of buying a used one online for $60+.

Poor people are poor because they refuse to properly budget their lives and live far outside of their means. I have no sympathy for them. The ones I have sympathy for are those who eat ramen noodles every night because it's what they can afford while doing all they can to actually get ahead in life. Not the whiny group of child minded people that has seemingly overtaken the lower classes.

 

But what have you risked? Put your money on the line or borrow some and risk it by going into business.

 

Where EXACTLY did I say that wealth inequality started in 2001?

All you do is keep harping on about something I have neither said - nor even thought.

 

I asked because you keep referring to 2001 in your posts about income inequality, and got apoplectic when I showed you that inequality started skyrocketing 20 years earlier in 1981.

If you acknowledge that income inequality started skyrocketing in 1981, who cares what happened in 2001?

You claim you want my opinions but you keep dodging my questions.

What is your weird fixation on 2001? Income inequality growth, unbalanced budgets, government interference, and support of the fed happened well before 2001. Why would you arbitrarily act as if income inequality wasn't happening before 2001?

Are you questioning the fact that income inequality started exploding around 1981?

 

What I do with my money is irrelevant. Did you have something pertinent to my point.

 

So the pie is limited in your mind? Just a matter of dividing it equally (by force) is the only way?

Take the iPhone for example, did that take wealth away from the majority of people and stuff it into the pockets of Steve Jobs, and Apple’s major shareholders/executives? Or, did the iPhone and it’s App world provide millions of opportunities and ideas for hungry entrepreneurs to create BILLIONS of dollars of new wealth in the economy?

 

Well the pie is what is produced. A company sells products, and its profit is based on revenues less expenses. Worker's wages are expenses. Decrease what you pay the workers, the owners profit (and size of his slice of the pice) increases, while the workers slice of the pie decreases.

And that, in the aggregate, is basically what we've seen over the past 35 years.

 

You couldn’t address my second paragraph though, which was stumping you. So I’ll paste it here again, you’re welcome.

Take the iPhone for example, did that take wealth away from the majority of people and stuff it into the pockets of Steve Jobs, and Apple’s major shareholders/executives? Or, did the iPhone and it’s App world provide millions of opportunities and ideas for hungry entrepreneurs to create BILLIONS of dollars of new wealth in the economy?

 

I've never claimed that innovation and new products are something bad. Are you trying to argue that Apple is representative of typical companies in the US?

You couldn’t address my first paragraph though, which was stumping you. So I’ll paste it here again, you’re welcome.

A company sells products, and its profit is based on revenues less expenses. Worker's wages are expenses. Decrease what you pay the workers, the owners profit (and size of his slice of the pice) increases, while the workers slice of the pie decreases.

 

The three richest Americans have more loot than all trump voters combined, eh...

 

The owner is in business to make and maximize his profit. Employees (communists call them “workers”) are overall paid what the owner can afford to pay them for their skill/time. If he can pay more, he does so, be it with a raise, or a perk, etc. But not you or I can demand of a private citizen how much he has to pay an at will employee who took the job of his own free will.

 

Lots of people call workers workers who aren't communists.

Completely wrong. Owners pay workers based on supply and demand for their skills. It has nothing to do with what the owner can afford or what they contribute to the production.

If he doesn't have to pay more, he keeps more profit.

Niether you or I can demand it, I agree. But there are ways to increase wages to levels that more closely approximate what the workers add to value as opposed to what the market will bear. They include a minimum wage and effect organized representation which has leverage to bargain better wages. Another way is to decrease the supply of workers available for higher (e.g. by creating government employment) which will also increase wages as more companies compete for fewer available employees.

 

Breaking: 3 Richest Americans Now Own More Wealth Than Bottom 50%


Good

 

A product of multiple Tax Cuts and Tax Reforms with bipartisan support
since JFK began dismantling the Eisenhower Tax code.


Moi

r > g

​

 

Let's say the top 3 people would own 50% of the US land. Would that take away your opportunity to own land? Of course it would. For one, it would drive up the price of the remaining land.

The same goes for wealth. Since wealth is built on limited resources, wealth cannot be unlimited.

 

You know that government jobs produce, quite literally nothing right? Government employees are a parasite on the producing private sector where real innovation comes from.

 

On this I sort of agree with you. It never made sense to me that the McDonald's CEO makes $9,200/hr while his average employee, without whom the business would fail, average $10/hr.

 

Wealth is unlimited, as long as innovation is free to invent at risk to the investors.

Thinking that the wealth is limited is a pathway to the class warfare talking point which as I’ve mentioned before, is rooted in jealousy, one of the most pathetic human traits.

 

Like 80% of McDonald's is owned by small business so that's a bad example, a CEO is a very tiny percentage of a company's pay roll.

 

Maybe you have to rewrite the rules of thermodynamics. In fact, the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that entropy of the universe has to be always increased for spontaneous processes. This holds for economic transactions as well. This means that every economic transaction will be just a tiny bit harder than the previous economic transaction, because it occurs on the backdrop of the increased entropy caused by the previous transaction. In laymen's terms: Do more with less.

Thus, if a rich man already has produced lots of entropy by many previous economic transactions, my ability to produce more entropy is reduced. So, you premise, while sounding nice, doesn't hold up to the laws of nature.

 

What have they done? They've found a way to use their skills to become rich. They earned their money, there's no reason to be jealous or envious. Get out there and do for yourself and stop expecting everyone to help you.

 

Dude, they earned their money. Are you pissed off that you can't have a share of their trophy wife, too? Quit being so ****ing jealous.

 

The alt-left writes something off for a democrat because it happened more than 10 years ago, but starts a thread about something a Republican did, according to hearsay, 40 years ago because the Republican's election is about to happen.

 

People working for a living earn it too. Quit being so ****ing greedy.

 

You are worth as much as someone is willing to pay you right?

I can bring up Tom Brady, who is getting the “$9,200/hr” wage while the guy who is cutting the grass at the stadium is getting a tiny fraction of that. Same scenario where without the field being prepped, there is no game, and no business to pay Brady, etc. just like without the McDonald’s employee, but both are easily replaced since there are millions of people with no skill required who could do that job.