New research reveals truth about inequality: When the rich get richer, everyone loses

So you advocate to not 'play by the rules'? Do nothing, no education, no skills, just whine to the politicians to solve their problems?

BTW: for every one you talk about above, many more did just fine...

 

There are community colleges which are inexpensive which is exactly what I did for my first two years in pre-med before transferring to the university.

No one holds a gun to people's head and demand they go into debt...this is 100% voluntary.

Too many excuses...

 

Even community college tuition has skyrocketed. It has left no one untouched. I am comparing rates to when I was just getting out of high school 23 years ago, to what my kid is facing, and it's ridiculously expensive in comparison.

My kid is making about the same amount per hour I was 23 years ago, while trying to balance tuition, rent, food, etc... All of which have seen significant increases in prices due to inflation, tuition is higher than when I was just starting out.

http://money.cnn.com/infographic/economy/heres-why-the-middle-class-feels-squeezed/

Some nice charts for those that like them. Income for middle class, not counting lower income levels is back to 1995 levels, but prices for everything else is way higher.

That lie about a rising tide lifting all boats through trickle down economics is such bullcrap. It's amazing people actually buy that tripe.

It's like a recent comment someone made to me:

A *********, CEO and Union Worker are sitting at a table with a dozen doughnuts sitting on a plate

The CEO grabs 11 of them then whispers to the ********* "Hey, that union guy is gonna take part of your doughnut!"

That is what Fox News and most of the current media companies are doing. They are deflecting the real story of how the Rich are plundering the economy, and the so called Tea Party patriots are buying into the message whole hog, all the while getting fleeced just like everyone else.

 

You win or loose a game based on your performance. Unless you're playing CandyLand, playing by the rules isn't how you succeed, it's the just the minimum courtesy the other players expect of you.





​

 

•Two-thirds of community college students nationwide attend part-time, according to the American Association of Community Colleges[7] . Tuition for state residents typically costs $45-$250 or more per credit unit/hour, or $135-$750 for a standard three-unit class. For out-of-district or out-of-state students, tuition can cost $100-$550 or more per credit unit, or $300-$1,650 to take one three-unit class. Additional mandatory per-student fees plus other costs like lab fees or a parking permit can add $25-$200 or more to the total cost for part-time students, depending on the school.

Everything in life costs money...this cannot be avoided. If people make education a priority, then they will achieve it. If they make excuses they will not achieve it. Even in the worst economic cases, what's the excuse for kids not attending at least 3 hours per week of college studies? So what if it takes 4-6 years to obtain a degree compared to the alternative of no education.

I don't debate or discuss politics...it's a 100% waste of time...

 

The other reality I see is that many kids who are working through college, getting a degree, and not liberal arts degrees either, are ending up working dead end jobs because unless you get in a specific niche role, there's the beginning of a glut of college educated people, driving down wages for even college educated people.

The reality is that trickle down economics have ruined the great american dream, and made it into a nightmare.

 

There is no such thing as 'trickle down' economics? This is more political and meaningless BS.

More excuses about education...every kid and person can obtain additional education in the areas of their choice. Who cares if it's in liberal arts...this is their choice. An education is about learning first and employment second. Whatever a person earns in the workplace is a direct reflection of the decisions they make. If someone does not like their supposed 'dead end jobs', then that person needs to take action to change the course! Or they can just make excuses and whine and achieve little in life.

You, me and all other people are 100% responsible for the decisions we make which govern our lives. Today I know exactly what I did right and what I did wrong and I have made adjustments all my life to achieve whatever it is I needed or desired...I win some and lose some...so what...this is life. I have never whined to daddy, never asked government to support me, and no matter my wins or losses...I take full responsibility for them. This is what is missing in society today...

 

had pay kept up with inflation, that would still be true

 

There is nothing written or implied that worker compensation must parallel inflation? If a person does not like their pay, then THAT PERSON needs to take steps to change their course.

How about a comment about my question; I doubt anyone on this forum can be honest about this, but please explain what is different today from when I was young that is preventing tens of millions of Americans from avoiding crime, avoiding drugs and alcohol and gambling, achieving more education and skills, living within their means, and seeking out and competing for better jobs?

 

never said there was

I said "had pay kept up with inflation, that would still be true"

if you want a environment like the post I replied to, then it has to keep up


.

 

Funny - the rich getting richer hasn't effected my income at all.

On the other hand, the government getting bigger, richer and more powerful has adversely effected my income.

Why don't we hear progs complaining about that particular brand of income inequality? How is it a good thing that the middle class is paying more to the government and keeping less of their income???

 

But if we know there is no guarantee that worker compensation will keep pace with inflation, then why go there?

When we have millions of uneducated and unskilled workers, all competing for less jobs than there are workers, the wages will be depressed...no matter what inflation is doing. As long as we have a greater supply of labor than the demand for labor, wages will be depressed...no matter what inflation is doing.

 

and welfare helps keep those wages hire as it reduces the work pool, your saying if they all went to get jobs... they would be worth less?

 

Businesses don't produce when there is no demand.

- - - Updated - - -

On the other hand, the government getting bigger, richer and more powerful has adversely effected my income.

Why don't we hear progs complaining about that particular brand of income inequality? How is it a good thing that the middle class is paying more to the government and keeping less of their income???[/QUOTE]

Your unsubstantiated claims of your personal situation is irrelevant.

 

Businesses don't produce when they don't exist. Duh!

 

"Trickle-down economics" and the "trickle-down theory" are terms in United States politics to refer to the idea that tax breaks or other economic benefits provided to businesses and upper income levels will benefit poorer members of society by improving the economy as a whole. ... Today, "trickle-down economics" is most closely identified with the economic policies known as "Reaganomics" or laissez-faire. David Stockman, who as Reagan's budget director championed these cuts at first but then became skeptical of them, told journalist William Greider that the "supply-side economics" is the trickle-down idea: "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

More kids than ever go to college. 15 percentage points more than in 1981.

That's not the reason so much more of our nation's income and wealth are going to the richest instead of the middle class since Reagan's "trickle down" revolution.

 

Duh.

We have plenty of businesses to produce more, if there was more demand for their goods and services.

Duh.

 

silly post. Liberals don't hate capitalists and they don't think corporations are evil. Liberals like me just have no problem with a more progressive income tax, and better regulation of capitalism.

 

Sillier post. There are many posts here on PF you can read, there is also the whole occuturd wallstreet morons you can watch on youtube. Liberals have no problem with income tax because they need those taxes to keep their potential voters on the teet. The same way a drug dealer likes to keep his customers hooked on drugs.

 

I explained to you why there is no guarantee for worker's wages to keep up with inflation...

 

Regarding your trickle down economics, I'd say it's time to move forward from the 80's and stop making excuses for people's failures. Your trickle down economics is not keeping your people from obtaining more education, more skills, and making better decisions in life. Either we accept our status quo or we take steps to change it...this is 100% our choice. The wealthier people are not keeping your people from obtaining more education, more skills, and making better decisions in life. If life is as horrible and hopeless as you imply, then people might as well kill themselves. If they're not ready to commit suicide, then they should be putting forth every imaginable effort to change their course. Instead of entitlement...how about perseverance to do better...

- - - Updated - - -

Regarding your trickle down economics, I'd say it's time to move forward from the 80's and stop making excuses for people's failures. Your trickle down economics is not keeping your people from obtaining more education, more skills, and making better decisions in life. Either we accept our status quo or we take steps to change it...this is 100% our choice. The wealthier people are not keeping your people from obtaining more education, more skills, and making better decisions in life. If life is as horrible and hopeless as you imply, then people might as well kill themselves. If they're not ready to commit suicide, then they should be putting forth every imaginable effort to change their course. Instead of entitlement...how about perseverance to do better...

 

From a story about Federal Reserve's chair, Janet Yellen, and her speech today:

We, the people, HAD a spending problem and the massive recession and subsequent meltdown cured a lot of it. Consequently, the demand from the middle class (a class that's being erased on a daily basis) has greatly slowed. And, if there is limited demand, there is limited production and if there is limited production there is limited need to hire and so on and on and on.

 

Typical of the 1% apologist justification for the huge weatlh inequality and increasingly disproportionate share of the nation's income and wealth they get.

It's time you stopped use the excuse of "other people's failures" for why the 1% has doubled its take of the nation's income and wealth at the expense of the middle class.

The 1% didn't get double its share of the nation's income to 20+% because of "other peoples' failures". It didn't double its share of the nation's wealth to about 40% because every one else started getting less education, less skills, and make bad decisions. The 1% is getting double the share because of policies and international trends that are no individual's fault.

 

You forgot buying votes in Congress.

 

I've been saying this (*)(*)(*)(*) for years now.

It is true that the GR recession had a disproportionately negative effect on the middle/poorer classes. Recessions usually do. This one even the more so because of the austerity we've been doing.

But it's not simply a function of the recession. It is also a function on the fact that over the past 30 years, very little of the nation's growth and prosperity has gone to the middle classes, and almost all to the richer:



Since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution, we've seen the middle class (bottom 90%) share of the nation's income go from about 65%, where it had been since the 1940s, to about 50% now.

That is 15 percentage points of a gross national income of about $15 trillion. That equates about $2.2 trillion less money going to the middle class proportionally, compared to 50 years ago.

If we assume that the wealthy save only 25% of their income (and reports show that it is more typically 50%) then that means that about $550 billion less is being spend each year because of this yawning wealth inequality gap.

The Stimulus, by way of comparison, had about $550 billion in spending spread over a couple years.

In other words, reversing this wealth inequality would be a like adding two free Stimulus packages, every single year. What would the economy and spending look like with another $550 billion being spent every year?

It is well beyond time to stop pampering the 1%, reverse trickle down policies, and start rebuilding our middle class.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly. It falls under the policy part.