|
Replies: 72
| visibility 1
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
|
|
|
 |
Hall of Famer [24698]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42373
Joined: 7/31/10
|
That was 2012...It's much less equitable now...***
Feb 23, 2020, 11:25 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
What is your definition of EARNED?
Feb 23, 2020, 11:29 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [48078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 49059
Joined: 5/16/04
|
Re: What is your definition of EARNED?
Feb 24, 2020, 6:15 AM
|
|
Is a millionaire wealthy anymore? 1 million in worth doesnt seem that wealthy to me anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: What is your definition of EARNED?
Feb 24, 2020, 7:44 AM
|
|
Actually, somewhere just south of $500,000 will get you in the 1%. It's sort of funny, but the same inequities that exist with the 1% also exist within the 1%.
The top .01% make far, far more than the rest of the 1%. and they have shifted the top !% tax burden down on the rest of the 1% disproportionally, too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [48078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 49059
Joined: 5/16/04
|
Re: What is your definition of EARNED?
Feb 24, 2020, 7:47 AM
|
|
Thats interesting. Yeah all that needs to reevaluated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: What is your definition of EARNED?
Feb 24, 2020, 7:19 AM
[ in reply to What is your definition of EARNED? ] |
|
T3,
I think you have misunderstood me and looking back at my headline I can see how. I am not begrudging or demonizing the extremely wealthy. I am saying that working Americans like you and I contribute more to our economy and our society than the share that we are currently getting.
The men that you have mentioned have created innovation that has changed our world, but I dare any man to stand before me and say that he is worth 380 times what I am worth in any real measure of contribution- that he contributed more before lunch than I did all year. And what about all of the workers who contributed to those men's success. Where is their fair share ?
I am not saying the wealthy have not earned a larger piece of the pie than the rest of us. But I am saying it is far too great a piece of the pie. And that they have used their wealth and power to slant the playing field in their favor to increase their advantage over time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40344]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23463
Joined: 7/13/12
|
on the subject of charity
Feb 24, 2020, 7:56 AM
[ in reply to What is your definition of EARNED? ] |
|
I’m a bit of skeptic of the genuineness of the charitable giving and foundations.
It always seems to me to be a nice convenient way of dodging some taxes and looking generous at the same time.
Maybe they actually believe in some of these causes and I should believe in them, but maybe not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93618]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95392
Joined: 12/25/09
|
We use to have terms which applied to those who see...
Feb 24, 2020, 7:07 AM
|
|
their neighbor's possession and want them. We said they are covetous. There is no excuse for being covetous. Covetousness grows from greed and jealousy. These emotions cause a good man to court evil.
The reasoning behind this is 'the need and wants of one creates an obligation for others.' That is a lie. So basically I'm saying people who think the term 'shared wealth,' are Christian concepts are deceived. They are promoting greed, covetousness and deceptions. The blind leading the blind.
That does not relieve Christians of their personal obligation to love, have compassion on the poor or contribute to help the poor. No matter how hard folks try to conflate Christian obligation to God with government programs for taxpayers to 'share the wealth,' they are not equal and Gov programs can not replace a man's obligation to God to love others.
It's none of our business that Mike Bloomberg has 60 bil or that Trump or anyone else is a billionaire. We have no right to their money no matter how we try to justify taking it or what our intentions are for using it. If we want it then we are greedy covetous liars and border on being thieves. Thus we become evil.
Shame on us!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: We use to have terms which applied to those who see...
Feb 24, 2020, 7:41 AM
|
|
1988,
First of all, speak for yourself. This has nothing to do with greed, covetousness, or deception (unless you are talking about these rich people). This is about fairness. Don't try to make working Americans feel evil for wanting a fair share of the economic rewards which they have generated through their hard work and sacrifice.
Back in the 50s and 60s, we ran this country according to a set of economic rules that allowed for honest Americans to work hard and get their fair share of the American pie. We managed to pay off massive WW II debt, send millions on the higher education and good jobs, and explode the number of families climbing into the middle class and a decent life.
However, starting in the 80s, the oligopoly in this country began to lobby to increase their share. They pushed for tax cuts that favored the wealthy (sort of like 2018). They pushed for deregulation of the banking/financial industry so that they could make more money (remember 2007) and they hired thousands of accountants and tax lawyers to create and exploit more loopholes for the rich.
They also pushed for the power to but Senators and Representatives by allowing unlimited and anonymous contributions to the electoral process.
I am not nearly as greedy, covetous, or deceptive as these power hungry oligarchs. And I am certainly not evil to call for a level playing field where hard work, honesty, and compassion are reasonably and proportionately rewarded in our society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31863]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37166
Joined: 11/22/03
|
The buzzword populism is strong with this one***
Feb 24, 2020, 7:55 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: The buzzword populism is strong with this one***
Feb 24, 2020, 8:41 AM
|
|
populism - a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.
If you mean that I think that our country should re-establish rules and regulations that establish a fair playing field so that honest, hard working Americans can better provide for their families, I will gladly wear that label.
If you are saying that i think the rich are turning the US democracy into an oligarchy to best serve their desires, I think the data will back me up on that one.
Who do YOU think that the government should be helping and what should their overall goal be ?
Don't just snipe, contribute to the conversation - if you can.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93618]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95392
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Populism.
Feb 24, 2020, 9:21 AM
|
|
Bernie is not a populist. By the most basic definition of populist Bernie fails. Being popular to a minority is not populism.
AP
Sanders calls for decriminalizing illegal border crossings nov 7 2019
67% of Americans think this is nuts.
NYT
Bernie sanders wants to 'break up,' ice Nov 7 2019
Again the vast majority of Americans think this is nuts
Washington times
Bernie Sanders reaffirms that illegal immigrants should be covered under universal healthcare
Not a populist when programs are not popular
Yeah, that's going to garner a lot of support.
67% of Medicare for all think they get to keep their current plan
24% know they can't
9% don't know
KFF health tracking poll Jan 9-14 2019
I understand, you are young but that doesn't excuse your ignorance. Bernie is not a populist. Being liked by one fat ugly chick doesn't make you popular.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: Populism.
Feb 24, 2020, 9:44 AM
|
|
WOW, I usually don't see such a powerful mixture of condescension and ignorance. Actually, I do but it always surprises me.
1. Hi ! I am NOT Bernie and the video has nothing to do with Bernie.
2. I have been studying and teaching American Government and Macroeconomics for over 30 years, so maybe you should respect your elders, young pup.
3. I am working on a project right now that entails quite a bit of more detailed research on the intersection of the two. Now perhaps you also have been doing this type of in-depth research too, but the shallowness of your reply suggests not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93618]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95392
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I knew you weren't young.
Feb 24, 2020, 9:58 AM
|
|
Your ability to ignore the obvious had to be a lifetime achievement, a long lifetime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: I knew you weren't young.
Feb 24, 2020, 11:33 AM
|
|
Enlighten me, big boy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31863]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37166
Joined: 11/22/03
|
I think the government....
Feb 24, 2020, 9:34 AM
[ in reply to Re: The buzzword populism is strong with this one*** ] |
|
should set very broad rules with certain protections...I think almost all of this ought to occur at the state level (working conditions/safety, min wage, labor laws, etc...). Some of it does now, but there is way too much federal involvement.
I think the playing field is more fair now than it ever has been. Looking at the results and not blaming our work ethic and cultural shifts is a big mistake a lot of people are making, in my opinion.
Look at the stats on all of the first generation millionaires. Moving up from one economic "class" to another has never been easier. And that goes for general/unskilled laborers too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: I think the government....
Feb 24, 2020, 10:39 AM
|
|
I am not going to argue your specific points here, but I don't see how that explains or ameliorates the wildly unfair distribution of wealth - or how wildly different the reality is from what people think that the reality is - or should be.
I tried to look up something about upward mobility but all of the data seemed really old (1960 - 1980). The only current thing that i did find suggested that moving up one quintile was quite possible, but it was less common than one might think. It seemed to suggest that the "new millionaires that you mentioned were mostly the upper 1% (~$500K) moving up to $1M by investing inherited wealth in companies or stocks. There is nothing wrong with that but it hardly seems representative of our general concept of upward mobility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93618]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95392
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I'm just trying to be honest/
Feb 24, 2020, 8:15 AM
[ in reply to Re: We use to have terms which applied to those who see... ] |
|
I'm a little stunned that you want to MAGA by returning to the days of the 1950s and 60s. And more so that you can ignore the fact that anyone who wants to work can find a job now.
"I am not nearly as greedy, covetous, or deceptive as these power hungry oligarchs."
That's a pretty low bar you've set for yourself. Surely our aspirations and reach should be greater than theirs. I think your statement fits the exact description I presented about justifying greed, covetousness and deception to justify being greedy, covetous and jealous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: I'm just trying to be honest/
Feb 24, 2020, 8:55 AM
|
|
Your first post attempted to chastise Americans for wanting their fair share. How dare they question the earnings of their oligarch masters.
Your first post attempted to glorify and justify these oligarchs. Now you claim that is a low bar.
Economically, America was at its best and fairest during the 50s and 60s. The economy was booming - honest, Americans were reaping the benefits of their hard work - families were upwardly mobile in huge numbers - the rich were paying their fair share in taxes - etc.
We certainly had some real social issues that we are still working on, but if we went back to the economic sensibility that we had then, all people (including women and people of color) would be able to better deal with all of the other issues that compromise their quality of life.
In a country as abundantly well-off as ours, all we have to do is allow for the resources and rewards to be fairly allocated in order to dramatically improve our society over time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93618]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95392
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Woah there.
Feb 24, 2020, 9:11 AM
|
|
There are jobs available for people who want their fair share. WTPH is wrong with people who try to justify greed?
When and where did I justify greed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: Woah there.
Feb 24, 2020, 11:32 AM
|
|
There are jobs, but many don't pay well enough to make a living, especially if you are trying to do a good job raising your kids. More and more families are two wage earner families to try to make ends meet. More and more people are working two or three jobs to take care of their families.
in a country as well off as the USA is, If two people are working full time to support their family, they should not be struggling. They don't need to be on easy street, but they should be able to have medical care and get their kids food and a decent education so that they can contribute to society when the grow up.
And it is a little bit hard for me to worry about those poor ole millionaires and their yachts when millions of Americans are in that struggling row boat
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34486]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13513
Joined: 8/30/19
|
Every right winger on this board
Feb 24, 2020, 7:45 AM
|
|
is a temporarily embarrassed millionare.
How dare you take away their right to maybe be super rich one day?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: Every right winger on this board
Feb 24, 2020, 7:48 AM
|
|
I merely want to substitute the reality of 1000 of them earning a better life for their families for the dream of two of them somehow becoming super rich.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31863]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37166
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Can you explain how a specific "rich" person is currently...
Feb 24, 2020, 7:56 AM
|
|
keeping you from going your wealth?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: Can you explain how a specific "rich" person is currently...
Feb 24, 2020, 9:03 AM
|
|
Every year the USA economic pie is of a certain size. The more of that pie that is hoarded by the 1%, the less pie there is for the rest of us.
To address your question more directly, let's say I come up with a genius retail distribution plan that will not only save Americans money, it will do so without contributing one iota to greenhouse gases - it will be carbon neutral. Can my better idea really compete with Jeff Bezos and Amazon and the advantages in commerce and taxes that he has already carved out for himself ?? is that playing field really level ?? And don't we all suffer in some way from the lack of competition that these behemoth oligarchs promote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31863]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37166
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Sorry, but you didn't answer the question...
Feb 24, 2020, 9:45 AM
|
|
you answered with a theoretical situation. But I'll respond to that too...Amazon built their market position over a long time because they have a better "product" and made a lot of good decisions/moves to solidify their position. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't allow companies/people to be "that successful"? Why are you ruling out that another company won't come up with a betting idea? 10 years ago, people said the same thing about Wal-Mart. Before that, AT&T and on and on.
And the "economic pie" is not fixed...it just isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: Sorry, but you didn't answer the question...
Feb 24, 2020, 10:50 AM
|
|
The economic pie is not fixed - it grows over time. But it is fixed in any given year - so the more of it that go to the few in that year, the less that can go to the many.
We should work to promote fair competition. Competition is the essential part of capitalism that brings our society the benefits of innovative products and lower prices. The less open the competition, the less benefits to our society. In the early 20th Century, Teddy Roosevelt busted up some trusts for this very reason. It worked than and it will work again.
I don't want to unduly limit the free enterprise of these companies, but when financial, media, or other conglomerates get TOO big it limits free enterprise through lack of open competition. The government should try to help strike a balance so that the benefits of our economy are fairly distributed. This video say to me that we are significantly out of balance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31863]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37166
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Sorry, but....
Feb 24, 2020, 11:32 AM
|
|
"The economic pie is not fixed - it grows over time. But it is fixed in any given year - so the more of it that go to the few in that year, the less that can go to the many." doesn't make any sense.
How is something fixed, but then not fixed? Answer...it isn't "fixed". There are drivers of economic growth (and contraction). These aren't "set" for any specific time. We just measure GDP annually...actually we measure it monthly and quarterly. So, using your logic, it is just as valid to say the GDP is "fixed" for a month, but not a year, right?
But in reality, the economy isn't "fixed"...GDP is just a report on how good or bad the economy is doing (growing or contracting).
If someone else makes an "extra" $1, that doesn't mean that someone else directly gives up $1. If it did, the GDP wouldn't change.
I'm curious as to your age and background...not in a demeaning way, but I'm interested in what has led you to the opinions you have on this subject.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93618]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95392
Joined: 12/25/09
|
30 years in academia.***
Feb 24, 2020, 11:41 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: 30 years in academia.***
Feb 24, 2020, 12:02 PM
|
|
Whatever little box you can put me in to keep from having to examine the reality of the issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: Sorry, but....
Feb 24, 2020, 11:59 AM
[ in reply to Sorry, but.... ] |
|
I am a retired educator. I have been studying American Government, Macroeconomics and Psychology for thirty years. I grew up in a working class family but I have a Bachelor's from Clemson, a Master's from East Tennessee State and I am working on another master's in Political Science.
In regards to our discussion here, I am a bit distressed by the discrepancy between the distribution of economic rewards that Americans think exists in this country and the actual distribution that does. I am supportive of people reaping the benefits of their contribution to our economy. I just cannot get my head wrapped around the idea that those actual contributions are in any way comparable to the distribution of the economic rewards described in this video.
In addition, having taught in public schools for a large number of years, I have been made aware of a significant number of talented and/or motivated kids who might have contributed so much more to our society if they had not been limited (through no fault of their own)by their socio-economic circumstances.
You see flow, I perceive that out young people's minds are our most important resource for the betterment of our country and I see that resource being utilize in a very inefficient manner. How much more would they be able to contribute if they ate healthier, if their parents could afford adequate health care, if they didn't have to skip their homework because they have to work in the evenings to pay the bills, if they could afford to go to college ???
In a country as well-off as the US, this waste is shameful and it diminishes the lives of many of our citizens. We would all be better off if we encouraged the types of conditions that helped people contribute more to our society, but some of us seem hello-bent on promoting some gathering far more than they could ever use to the detriment of those who would more than repay us for a little extra help.
I am not against the rich, and I recognize that some extraordinary people manage to climb that success ladder despite all of the obstacles. But for every one that does that, there are 100 who could have done much better than they did but for a helping hand - the making it just a little bit easier - the rounding off of a few hard edges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31863]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37166
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Wait, what?.....
Feb 24, 2020, 12:47 PM
|
|
Are you serious that you taught macroeconomics?
On the surface, that seems really hard to believe. Not calling you a liar...but something just doesn't add up here. Did you major in Economics at Clemson?
Also, you wondered a little off topic here.
How about addressing the discussion about the "economy" being fixed, etc...?
You said "I am not against the rich, and I recognize that some extraordinary people manage to climb that success ladder despite all of the obstacles. But for every one that does that, there are 100 who could have done much better than they did but for a helping hand - the making it just a little bit easier - the rounding off of a few hard edges."
I'm assuming you believe the only way to better the disadvantaged is through the federal government? What about private charity and state and local programs?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31863]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37166
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Wealth and earning are NOT the same thing....
Feb 24, 2020, 7:50 AM
|
|
they are related, but not at all the same.
There are many people that become "wealthy" on moderate incomes. They live below their means, they save, they make good decisions, and they make good investments.
There are many, many people that make very high salaries (earnings) and have a very low (or at least relatively low) net worth. These are the people that buy new cars every 3 years, have most of their assets heavily leveraged, have the "keep up with the Jones'" mentality, etc...
Wealth is not a zero-sum equation. Someone else's net worth does not restrict your ability to build net worth for yourself. Too many people don't understand or believe this, hence Bernie Sanders (and in part Donald Trump).
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31863]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37166
Joined: 11/22/03
|
"earnings"***
Feb 24, 2020, 7:51 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: Wealth and earning are NOT the same thing....
Feb 24, 2020, 9:14 AM
[ in reply to Wealth and earning are NOT the same thing.... ] |
|
I certainly agree that wealth and income are not the same, but they are closely related. And you are correct, that some people earn wealth through frugality, but the video is talking about everyone. I don't see how a few exceptions should blind us to the unfair results of our current economic system, especially when we can easily see in our own history a time and a set of economic regulations that worked so much better - for everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31863]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37166
Joined: 11/22/03
|
So do you agree or disagree with this statement....
Feb 24, 2020, 9:25 AM
|
|
"Wealth is not a zero-sum equation. Someone else's net worth does not restrict your ability to build net worth for yourself."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: So do you agree or disagree with this statement....
Feb 24, 2020, 11:23 AM
|
|
In a microeconomic sense, I am mostly in control of my accumulation of wealth.
In a macroeconomic sense I would disagree. The whole group of people in the bottom 50% are not in control of their accumulation of wealth. If they were, I could not imagine the extremely unbalanced distribution of wealth described in the video. I do not think that people's intelligence, work ethic, honesty, etc. are distributed in such an unbalanced way, so why is their economic reward so skewed ? Because the wealthy oligarchy has always used their wealth, power, and influence to protect and increase their share. And in the last 35 years the oligarchy has done a particularly effective job of using the state to help them in doing so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31863]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37166
Joined: 11/22/03
|
I see it first-hand every day....
Feb 24, 2020, 12:59 PM
|
|
I run a manufacturing operation. I see so many people working relatively low-level hourly production jobs that clearly have the intellect to be able to do much higher level jobs. But they can't get to work on time, or show-up consistently, or work hard, and on and on.
It is so clear from my experience, that someone with a half-decent intellect and reasonable work skills can make it if they work hard and do their best. It doesn't come instantly, but it does come. Talk to anyone hiring/managing hourly workers and I'll bet you get the same story. A worker that shows up on time and works hard is worth their weight in gold right now.
Also, there is a huge deficiency in the ability to manage one's own finances now. I've got a parking lot full of cars worth $20k+ owned by people making $37k a year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155707]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65738
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Yup, starving artist bro-in-law who I referenced before,
Feb 24, 2020, 1:14 PM
|
|
the one who got a starter job out of Carnegie Mellon making 6 figures but left because it was "too corporate" and now is a late-40's San Fran artist who crashes couches in rent-controlled apartments, bangs 20-somethings (I guess he's not doing too badly), and has to go to Mexico to get gofundme paid for dental surgery, posted a pro-Bernie Insta this morning saying "I should be able to afford health care in this country".
He's like the walking version of Aesop's "The Grasshopper and the Ant" fable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97677]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64821
Joined: 7/13/02
|
"Wealth" is not the market cap of a company.
Feb 24, 2020, 8:09 AM
|
|
Or the value of your stock holdings. The "wealth" of Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates is not equal to their stock holdings. Neither Gates, Bezos, or anyone could ever realize the dollar value of their "wealth". Not even close. Their "wealth" is largely built on ignorance. Invest in their company and you too can become wealthy. That's the sales pitch. And all the sheep dilligently line up to cut monthly checks to their 401K's, for their retirement. That money is invested in a company, a stock, and that in turn gets put into the market value of the company, and just enriches the "wealth" of the Bezos' of the world that much more.
Fact is Bezos can not ever get his hands on the full value of his stock holdings in Amazon. Same for Gates and Microsoft. They know this. What most people don't know is they can never get the full value of their 401K if they all decided to cash out at once. You have to keep the game rolling to be able to honor the sales of those who cash out.
The truly wealthy diversify their "wealth" so they can actually HAVE wealth. Bezos and Gates have billions in assets they have acquired over years and years of selling bits and pieces of their stock holdings. Land, real estate, natural resources, other companies, other stocks, precious metals, other commodities. You name it. THAT is their wealth. You can forget using stock holdings to calculate wealth.
Sure there's rising inequality in incomes, which is a more accurate measure. Total "assets" will appear off the charts, but income is actual money, and that has also increased for the top 1% of wealth holders. But people who toss out "wealth" numbers based on stock assets are misleading people as much as the markets mislead people. Apple can't come up with $1.4 trillion dollars. Sure, maybe in 20 years they can. But not today, right now.
I have a mortgage right now. It's a fixed 30-year mortgage. Total payout over 30 years is say, 300,000. My house was purchased for $150,000. So, what is my house "worth"? It's worth what someone is willing to pay me for it. Can I sell it today for $300,000? No way. However, according to my mortgage company, who bundles and resells my mortgage, to THEM my house is worth $300,000. Right now. On their paper. And they market and sell my mortgage for that tidy sum, which MAY materialize when I finally pay off the mortgage. Assuming I pay it off. And here's the real kicker, say your house appreciates and doubles in value over those 30 years. You pay off your mortgage on year 30 and you own the house. Then you sell it for $300K, THINKING you doubled your profit when in fact, you broke even having paid $300K for it with your mortgage.
Your stock value is likewise based on future POTENTIAL earnings of the company. And as such, the value can be sold at the current market value only as long as people think that value can eventually be realized. It's all BS is my point. As long as the game can continue, everything is fine.
Message was edited by: Tiggity®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: "Wealth" is not the market cap of a company.
Feb 24, 2020, 9:36 AM
|
|
I am not sure why Jeff Bezoswould need to put his hands on $127B in cash, but the fact that his fortune is valued at that price is enough for him to buy or otherwise get whatever he wants as if it was cash.
You house may only have cost $150K, but the bank gave you the loans because they were confident that you were good for the whole $300K
None of this impacts that fact that the video points out so well, that the rewards for every American's contributions to our economy and society are not being very fairly distributed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97677]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64821
Joined: 7/13/02
|
It shouldn't be equally distributed.
Feb 24, 2020, 9:48 AM
|
|
It never has been, and never will be. Equality is not natural. To even approach it takes coercion and then forget about freedom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: It shouldn't be equally distributed.
Feb 24, 2020, 11:15 AM
|
|
This is a common straw man argument. Nobody is arguing for equal distribution. Even the video makes that point (did you watch it ?) We are talking about a more fair distribution - where people get rewarded fairly for their contributions to our economy and our society.
Nobody on the planet is contributing 380 times more than I am - nobody.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155707]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65738
Joined: 5/6/13
|
I'm with you if we can all agree on the definition of "fair"
Feb 24, 2020, 1:04 PM
|
|
I've never seen it defined though in a way that pleased all 330M of us in the USA. One man's fair is another man's screw job.
Also, I'm sure you're a quality guy, but Amazon is employing 800k people. If you can divide that by 380 and come up with a number that's smaller than your contribution to the economy, I bow to your business acumen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31863]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37166
Joined: 11/22/03
|
I get it though now....
Feb 24, 2020, 1:08 PM
|
|
if he believes the "economy" is a zero-sum game, then those 800k jobs are just jobs taken from somewhere else and the person responsible for them didn't really do that much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155707]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65738
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Yeah, I saw that too, but you were already responding with
Feb 24, 2020, 1:16 PM
|
|
what's in my head.
The only time a country's GDP is relatively fixed is when the state is in control of most or all of the economy...that's the ironic part.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31863]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37166
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Sure there are....
Feb 24, 2020, 1:05 PM
[ in reply to Re: It shouldn't be equally distributed. ] |
|
did you take your hard earned money and sink it all behind an idea you had and then worked 100 hours a week for years to get it off the ground. Then risk any money made back into the company to continue to grow it, ultimately providing jobs for 100's / 1000's of other people, etc...?
I'm quite confident that there are many people "contributing" many factors higher than 380 times what you do (and me too for that matter).
Of course, if you actually believe the "economy" is fixed, maybe you really do think no one contributes 380 times more than you do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6101]
TigerPulse: 85%
Posts: 10117
Joined: 11/1/11
|
Re: There is NO way that the rich have EARNED this much
Feb 24, 2020, 8:39 AM
|
|
Very few wealthy people got rich by playing by the rules. Rules are for little people, who go to jail when they break those rules. And no, Bernie isn’t going to fix this. He’s just playing on the emotions of his blind followers who don’t understand how powerless they are. Eventually they learn to keep quiet and be good little debt slaves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: There is NO way that the rich have EARNED this much
Feb 24, 2020, 9:24 AM
|
|
WOW, that's a bit too cynical for me. I think that the video is pointing out that the system, even legally adhered to is biased and unfair, so remedying that would be my main interest.
More to your point, after the bank crisis of 2007, a number of Congressmen wanted to break up the banks and put some regulations into place that would prevent these kinds of abuses and their resulting damage. They also wanted to dramatically increase the Securities Exchange Commission's budget so that they could really monitor and enforce those regulations.
That went nowhere fast because the oligarchs can buy representation in Congress through unlimited soft money contributions and anonymous donations. We actually have some people in congress who want to ameliorate the situation but they cannot fight the massive amounts of money, power, and influence that these oligarch wield to protect their economic position on top of the mountain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [48078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 49059
Joined: 5/16/04
|
Re: There is NO way that the rich have EARNED this much
Feb 24, 2020, 8:50 AM
|
|
Richest 540 people in the USA are worth 2.4 trillion dollars. That's impressive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: There is NO way that the rich have EARNED this much
Feb 24, 2020, 9:30 AM
|
|
impressive - in what sense ?
That works out to 4.4 billion per person - is that right ?
i am sure that they have earned every penny of it. /s
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155707]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65738
Joined: 5/6/13
|
On the flip side, are you sure that they've
Feb 24, 2020, 9:47 AM
|
|
stolen every penny from the proletariat?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34536]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 41381
Joined: 4/20/01
|
are these people that stupid? (dont answer that)***
Feb 24, 2020, 10:54 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: On the flip side, are you sure that they've
Feb 24, 2020, 11:11 AM
[ in reply to On the flip side, are you sure that they've ] |
|
Oh, no. I don't want to demonize those who seek to get wealthy. I just think that over the last 35 years, the bourgeois have continually used their money and power to shift the playing field more and more in their direction to protect their oligopoly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155707]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65738
Joined: 5/6/13
|
In our current system, almost anyone who makes reasonably
Feb 24, 2020, 11:50 AM
|
|
Good (not perfect, just good) life choices can have 7 figures in their 401K by 65. It’s not magic, it doesn’t require a college education, and it doesn’t require rich parents, and yet millions of people choose to make poor choices and blame it on the wealthy and a rigged system when their poor choices have consequences.
There’s no grand conspiracy and there’s no glass ceiling for the lower and middle class in this country. A shift to socialism (or worse) only cements the ruling class’s seat at the table and removes the upsides for those who wish to make good choices.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: In our current system, almost anyone who makes reasonably
Feb 24, 2020, 12:13 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155707]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65738
Joined: 5/6/13
|
yup friend of ours is a single mom who has 4 boys.
Feb 24, 2020, 12:33 PM
|
|
Their dad is a POS who ran off, but that's another story, and the boys are basically like adopted sons for me.
Been helping one in particular who had to drop out of college because his Dad used his SS# to amass a ton of debt, so not only could he not cover tuition, he couldn't get a loan either.
Long story short, I've been helping him with financial advice for a while. He's 26 and has a job at Lyft corporate making around $40k/year. Through hard work, he's debt free, his credit score is back up to about 680 and climbing (from the 400 his dad dropped it to), and he's currently putting 12% in his 401k with an eye on moving it to 15% when he gets his next raise.
In his current scenario, with everything remaining static and a reasonable 7% return assumption, he has a phenomenal shot at achieving $1M (2020 dollars) by 65.
If you factor in wage growth via COLA and/or promotions, that number gets closer to $2M.
If he gets married and stays married to a spouse with similar financial behaviors, that number eclipses $2M.
So a kid from a single-parent family with limited means, with no degree, can be looking at leaving the working world with $2M in the bank. I'm really not sure what else I could ask for from my country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7026]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15682
Joined: 10/10/02
|
Why should he get to keep all that money though..
Feb 24, 2020, 1:04 PM
|
|
Does he really need $2 million dollars at 65?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155707]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65738
Joined: 5/6/13
|
You understand that an ancedote isn't irrelevant
Feb 24, 2020, 1:20 PM
|
|
if what's outlined is quite formulaic and could be repeated and duplicated by a majority of those reading it, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: You understand that an ancedote isn't irrelevant
Feb 24, 2020, 1:58 PM
|
|
If you watched the video it made the point that the bottom half (50%) of the people had no investments in the stock market. So either 50% of Americans are too stupid to put any money aside for their future OR they don't have the extra money to invest.
Which do y'all figure it is ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155707]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65738
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Stupid is a condescending judgement on intellect.
Feb 24, 2020, 2:17 PM
|
|
As I said before, I'd call it primarily a case of making poor economic decisions. I know people with low levels of education who make great economic decisions, and people of great education who make poor ones. It's not intelligence, it's basic understanding of how to play the game and win in the US. Perhaps if we taught economics at a sub-college level, and returned civics courses to the high school curriculum, more of your 50% would understand how to play the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155707]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65738
Joined: 5/6/13
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31863]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37166
Joined: 11/22/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: yup friend of ours is a single mom who has 4 boys.
Feb 24, 2020, 2:00 PM
|
|
Brother, if you think teaching high school in South Carolina is some kind of ivory tower, well you should see a proctologist . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: yup friend of ours is a single mom who has 4 boys.
Feb 24, 2020, 2:12 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18413
Joined: 12/10/14
|
Re: There is NO way that the rich have EARNED this much
Feb 24, 2020, 5:36 PM
|
|
Dude, they just worked harder than everybody else. Now I bet your going to say that the economy is rigged through the manipulation of legislation. Pfft.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18413
Joined: 12/10/14
|
Re: There is NO way that the rich have EARNED this much
Feb 24, 2020, 5:39 PM
|
|
You make some very fair points. On this board? Pearls before swine. (no offense to my porcine brothers)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 72
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
