Harder for Americans to Rise From Lower Rungs

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/u...s-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?src=me&ref=us

It shouldn't be like this. In the land of great opportunity, this shouldn't be the case. The gap in wealth shouldn't be widening. It shouldn't get even harder to reach the top.

 

You have to put opportunity to good use.

Also, keep in mind that the US is like 57 Denmarks. And, Western Europe saved a bundle hiding behind America's skirts during the Cold War. If, they had to spend money to keep the Bear at bay, their welfare state would not have been nearly so well funded.
_

 

And you propose...what?

 

It's all those Liberal Regulations keeping you down.

 

Seriously, what solution do liberals propose to the "widening wealth gap."

The "widening wealth gap" means people are getting richer. The only way to stop this trend is to make people poorer.

You can accomplish this with confiscatory taxation that eliminates all incentive to work beyond a certain income. That is why Europeans take such long vacations. It makes no sense to work harder than a certain point only to have your money taxed away by the government.

I read today that half of the top 1% are Americans. This fact proves that America is the land of opportunity.

Anyone who thinks they can't be in the top 1%, well you won't. Because thinking that way will make sure you never succeed.

 

What about our neighbors?

Also not all western European countries ranked in the top in other studies:

Are you suggesting that the poor people in other countries are somehow taking more advantage of opportunities than the Americans?

 

Where did you read that regarding the half of the top 1%?

I also don't understand your point regarding Europeans taking long vacations. If workers are being productive, what does it matter how many hours they are working? Looking at GDP per hours worked (http://www.bls.gov/fls/intl_gdp_capita_gdp_hour.pdf ) we're not even #1.

And yes, taxation is one way to start fixing the wealth gap. The other would be through education (which needs to be improved, and higher ed needs to be more accessible). As the article mentioned:

 

What regulations specifically are you referring to?

 

I have 19 years of formal education and you're (*)(*)(*)(*)ed straight I better make more money than a high school graduate.

Are you seriously proposing that a high school graduate should make as much money as me?

And how do you propose to accomplish that?

I know how. You will strip me of my income (by force!) and give it to the guy who didn't bother to get an education.

And then future generations won't bother going to college because it won't do them any good.

 

Since, you want to discuss demographics-does Canada have a large African-Canadian inner city population? Let's not beat around the bush. Our homicide rates and gun violence rates are skewed by the same demographics.

 

The Muslims will pull down the Canadians, Australians and Europeans until they understand what we have to put up with with the blacks. Then they won't laugh at us anymore because our problems will be their problems.

 

BS. What it means is that growth has been disproportional. A few individuals are getting way wealthier at the expense of everyone else. How do you solve that? Break the privilege of the wealthy and let income at the lower end rise. Start promoting demand-side economic policies, and pay for it with wealth taxes.

It could be accomplished plenty of other ways; for example, capping the mortgage deduction, eliminating income taxes for those making less than $50,000 a year and payroll taxes on the first $30,000 in income. Remove the payroll tax cap. Increase the income tax rates above $500,000 a year. Treat all income the same, including capital gains. There's plenty of ways to stimulate spending at the bottom. Hell, we could start giving more startup grants for low-income businesses, we could start giving no-fault microcredit for very small businesses. Put tariffs on uncompetitive imports from countries without adequate labor protections. We could just flat out pay for everyone's college, and could in fact put every unemployed person back in school. We could build more infrastructure, shifting government spending into jobs for the working class rather than wealthfare for the rich. Start prosecuting employers for wrongful termination or anti-union bullying. Pass union card check, and strike down state 'right to work for less' laws.

All of these proposals would be demand-side economic policies, and every last one of them would be opposed by Republicans because it would mean the wealthy would have to pony up a lot more than they do now, and it would threaten their favorable returns.

Complete, total bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

No it doesn't, not when that top 1% is self-perpetuating and hardly anyone can get into that quintile.

 

The forum isn't big enough to post them all.

What a nightmare. Is it any wonder why unemployment is as high as it still is?

 

I think what they are proposing is that the high school graduate ought to have the opportunity to further his education without borrowing a hundred thousand dollars or two. That is a crushing burden, and every economist in the country is screaming that fact. It is destroying our labor pool, and is the #1 reason why businesses are moving away. The quality of the US workforce is (*)(*)(*)(*), and it will only get worse as the workforce ages, because the burden of that debt is heavily skewed towards new graduates. It's increasingly more expensive to attain extensive college education for each new generation. The Gen Xers in the workforce now are not nearly as bad off as the millennial just now looking for work.

Yeah, I mean, I know conservatives love to crack jokes about how they all picked some useless degree and that's why they can't find a job, but the fact is that unemployment in that age bracket is right around 50%, and that's not even remotely explicable by a few people's choice of degree. It's at the point where even newly graduated engineers can't find work, and once they do get a job, they're immediately forced to start making house-payment sized payments on their student debt. That's not a workable situation. It's just flat out not going to work. The labor force will collapse if nothing is done to address this problem.

... to pay for him to get an education yes. To give him a job so that he might buy the products that you produce, yes. Who do you think you will have for customers if no one can even afford to put food on the table?

 

Why the hell would anyone want to move up when they're given incentive to move down?

Foodstamp, Medicaid, overextended ue benefits, EIC, housing assistance...etc you name it.

The option of getting paid $400/wk for three years to NOT doing anything is just too good to turn down.

 

Anyone thinking that is even remotely adequate compared to, say, a $60,000 a year job is kidding themselves. Government benefits are pathetic. Anyone trying to live it up on government benefits is going to be in for a rude shock.

 

I never proposed that. That's pretty absurd.

But through taxes, we should be improving education in this country, making higher ed more accessible, creating community programs to keep kids out of the streets, stopping illegal immigration, and expanding police departments to come down on crime.

 

Someone, the difference between you and me is that you threaten me with guns and prison to strip me of my wealth, but I do not threaten to do that to you.

My children will not eat if you get your way.

You are the mortal enemy of me and every working person in America.

 

It's still a better option than flipping burgers for $8/hr.

They will be on government tits as long as they're allowed to.

 

No, you just threaten me in other ways if I don't comply with the system or buy into its game.

If you're that poor, none of my proposals would have even the slightest impact on you, and you'd actually be getting a massive tax break. You'd be one of those people getting the benefits, not losing them. If you're wealthy enough to be worried about a mild tax jump on your second half million dollars, I don't think that's a threat to your family's food.

I mean, if you can earn $500,000 a year and have trouble putting food on table, you've got some serious money management problems. Even with a 35% tax rate.

Yeah, I threaten you... with tax cuts and job opportunities and student debt relief. God you people get hysterical over the smallest things.

 

Ok, aside from your sound argument for increases in the minimum wage, what does this have to do with actual work in the United States? Very few people try to make ends meet with a full time minimum wage job. Those that do are usually entitled to partial benefits anyway (as in, they don't lose all of them for going to work--they still keep the more important ones, like medicaid, food stamps, housing assistance, etc). Most working poor are making more like $10-12/hour. It's not hard to find a $10/hour job outside of entry-level retail or food service positions.

 

You totally missed the point. My point is over extended unemployment benefits and other government handouts do more harm than good for the economy in the long run. It gives people less incentive to be responsible and to look for works. Why would they want to work when government is taking care of them?

 

Blame the lib public education system for not educating low-income children to get better jobs when they grow up.

 

I actually agree with this. Self-limiting beliefs are devastating.

 

True. Schools are no longer producing skilled workers so corporations go to India and other places for those kind of employees.

Flipping burgers isn't the worst thing you can do (especially if it's all you can do for the moment) but it IS the worst thing to aspire to.