Wealth Inequality in America

[BigDaddyWatch]

And how did communism worked out for ya...???


Our poor live with air conditioning, LCD TVs, running hot/cold water, supermarkets filled with food, many are fat, many have two cars. How does the poor in ID live?

You are forgetting the growing numbers of homeless people in America that don't have all those things you mentioned. And over the past four years 18 million Americans have joint the ranks of the food stamps recipients. That's on average more than 86000 a week ! And how does the poor in America afford all this stuff you mentioned ? Well, the Americans have almost a trillion dollars worth of credit card debt, people are taking out second mortgages on their homes to buy stuff they can't afford with their regular income. The availability of easy credits has helped to masked the inequality in America. The Americans are able to keep up this appearance of wealth because of the 0% interest rate and easy money policies coming from the FED. But that policy is destroying the value of the currency and deepening the imbalances in the economy even further. And its creating another bubble in the economy that's even bigger than the last one. Just like the housing bubble in the 2000's was bigger than the dotcom bubble in the 1990's. The bubble of the 2010's will be a sovereign bond bubble ie national insolvency.

 

[gambit]

You are forgetting the growing numbers of homeless people in America that don't have all those things you mentioned. And over the past four years 18 million Americans have joint the ranks of the food stamps recipients. That's on average more than 86000 a week ! And how does the poor in America afford all this stuff you mentioned ? Well, the Americans have almost a trillion dollars worth of credit card debt, people are taking out second mortgages on their homes to buy stuff they can't afford with their regular income. The availability of easy credits has helped to masked the inequality in America. The Americans are able to keep up this appearance of wealth because of the 0% interest rate and easy money policies coming from the FED. But that policy is destroying the value of the currency and deepening the imbalances in the economy even further. And its creating another bubble in the economy that's even bigger than the last one. Just like the housing bubble in the 2000's was bigger than the dotcom bubble in the 1990's. The bubble of the 2010's will be a sovereign bond bubble ie national insolvency.

Do you want to compare American poor versus Chinese poor?

Sure, the homeless people on the streets are just jealous of the millionairs and they deserve to live on the street since they are just too stupid to make their first million although they had three low paying jobs before the ended up homeless because those three jobs still couldn't make ends meet for their necessary bills. Those lazy bumps should indeed have taken a fourth job and quit sleeping, resting, wasting their time with watching TV and eating junk food and they wouldn't have ended up on the street.

Any credible arguments here? Nope.

 

[Götterdämmerung]

Do you want to compare American poor versus Chinese poor?

first of all poverty is relative. The US should compare its poverty with other highly industrialised countries in Europe and Japan.

Any credible arguments here? Nope.

Just compare US against Germany, the Benelux, France or Scandinavian countries.

 

[gambit]

first of all poverty is relative. The US should compare its poverty with other highly industrialised countries in Europe and Japan.



Just compare US against Germany, the Benelux, France or Scandinavian countries.

The issue is 'wealth inequality' and why is it implied to be 'bad'. Not about poverty. If you believe that wealth inequality is an evil, then besides the moral arguments to support that belief, what are the institutional and legal mechanisms to deal with that inequality or even better, how to prevent it from happening in the first place.

Basic human needs are the minimum standards to judge wealth. After all, I need a bed, three square meals a day, and some clothes. So do you. So do Joseph Schmoe down the street. So the best way to prevent wealth inequality is to punish anyone who have more than those basic needs. That way, there will be no poverty, no excess wealth, no feelings of resentment, no jealousy. Such a society will be paradise on Earth.

 

[jhungary]

I think people mostly focus on one side of the problem here. Which you should not judge anything by its one side.

Wealth Inequality is bad for Economy? This statement alone is incorrect.
Wealth inequality is bad for the poors. This statement is correct.

basic Economy 101. To have a economy work, people need to think of THEMSELVE. The more selfish you get, the more money you have. You cannot just say, yeah Wealth inequality is bad for the poor, it create a lot of poor people. And hence it's bad for the economy. Until there are more poor people than rich + Medium Income people. This model is not True.

You cannot say something that's true in one extreme and you can successfully imply them into a general idea. Truth is, there are only 15-20% in America living under poverty line. That does not even represent 1/4 oif the whole population. If you look at the Middle Class and Rich and the Richest, wealth inequality is not a bad thing at all.

I personally maintain residence in United State, Sweden and Australia. I can tell you what i have see in all 3 differnet country

United States

Low Social Welfare, running on a Have-or-Have-Not system. No universial medical care, and no free education.
if you are poor people. You earn about $5 an hour doing labourer work. Of course you cannot afford anything, problem with this system is, you earn what you work. People don't get poor because they are hardworking. I yet to see a real hardworking American gone homeless. Most homeless people either are lazy, drug addict, or did something stupid in his/her course of life. Literally, you choose to become homeless 95 % of a time. Granted, there are someone some time would do everythign right still ended up becoming homeless. That did not happen a lot.

You cannot blame anyone for your own decision. You don't work that much, then of course you cannot afford your own home. It's an action and consequence type of thing.

Australia

High/Very high welfare, free medicare, half price/free education

If you ever live in Australia, you found out that it's literally impossible to be homeless. Australian New start allowance offer 1000 AUD (1200 USD) per month, with rent assistance, medicare and combine with other dole. it's not uncommon to have a family of 4 collecting 2-3000 AUD per month without even leave home (They deposit the dole to your account)

With HECS and FEE-HELP scheme. you only pay half of full fare for university and the other half are borrowed thru Fee-Help which literally you don't need to repay until you work and reach certain amount of taxable income.

Medical care is free of charge, all out patient service, inpatient, hospitalise are free according to you entitelment.

Does that appear well for Ausrtralian Economy? Not a single bit.

Look at it this way, if i earn $45000 per year $16,000 of my money will go to those poor people, basically we finance their lavish lifestyle so we make sure that they don't need to work for the rest of their life. In the end, who are going to work so we have enough social security pool to pay for those "Poor" people simply because they don't want to work.

I would just quit my job, get married and have 2 kids so i can get $3500 a month dole money, it ended up the same as i earn before and the only differrent is, i don't need to work at all.

Sweden.

Free College, Well established social welfare. Free medical

The sitaution is more or less the same as Australia, except for one fact that for every case of social welfare, some social worker are attached to you and make sure you work alright. With a lot of expense spend on social welfare, a large sum of tax are once again drewed to the working class.

Education is free from ground up. You don't ever pay anything, yet, many people decided to ditch education and instead either going to work or just sit home in their remote resort.

By now, i should tell you this, both Sweden and Australia appear to have their economic model works because of one and only one factor. Their Population. Australia have 23 millions citizens while Sweden have no more than 10 millions.

You can afford to "Raise" those people who earn less than you still. But if you are talking about a population such as America, it simply won't work, as you will put a lot of load on the Social Welfare system, and you ended up either depleting the whole government funcding or you simply go bankrupt.

Not everyone want to feed the poor for free. Not especially when you are living in a 300 millions people economy.

 

[UKBengali]

@jhungary : Germany(Western part) - this has 60 million people and the system like Sweden and Australia works there.

Anyway the idea that a mixed system won't work in US due to the number of people is incorrect.

The total US GDP is so much more than smaller countries like Sweden and so it is affordable.

Fact is that most Americans like the current system and so there is no need to change it - it is a CHOICE that Americans have made and it is nothing to do with economic efficiency. The UK is one of the closest countries in Europe to the US system and it is nowhere near as well off as Western Germany.

 

[A1Kaid]

Of course your going to have wealth inequality in a capitalist society, "wealth distribution" doesn't work to strengthen or develop society, simply giving handouts to people who haven't earned them or deserve them does little.

Take a look at many lottery winners, overnight they win tens of millions of dollars and within a decade they go broke because they do not have the knowledge/wisdom nor skills to manage that money in a constructive and fruitful way. They end up spending every cent of it in big spending streaks and before they know in a few years time they have no money left. If we simply take wealth away from the elite who by the way create industries and major companies and hire many employees and give wealth to the poor, it will temporarily alleviate the poor but the poor will just go back to being poor again in x years, of course not all some will benefit.

A better way is for those bottom of society to improve effort become educated, do well in school, and earn money via job.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/01/opinion/nocera-the-bad-luck-of-winning.html?_r=0

 

[Götterdämmerung]

The issue is 'wealth inequality' and why is it implied to be 'bad'. Not about poverty. If you believe that wealth inequality is an evil, then besides the moral arguments to support that belief, what are the institutional and legal mechanisms to deal with that inequality or even better, how to prevent it from happening in the first place.

Basic human needs are the minimum standards to judge wealth. After all, I need a bed, three square meals a day, and some clothes. So do you. So do Joseph Schmoe down the street. So the best way to prevent wealth inequality is to punish anyone who have more than those basic needs. That way, there will be no poverty, no excess wealth, no feelings of resentment, no jealousy. Such a society will be paradise on Earth.

Why do you have to paint the whole picture in black and white like many others here with a US flag in their profile? successful European countries have shown that we can have a relatively equitable society without killing the incentive to work hard and move forward.

Even in the days when Germany was much more a social economy we still had our billionairs and millionairs and at the same time the gap between rich and poor was much smaller than now. And where did I say that being wealthy is bad? where did I say that people who have more than they need should be punished? Stop putting word in my mouth!

It's all about equality and a just society where everyone should have a decent life and not end on the street despite working three jobs. Poverty is a hindrance to democracy, an enemy of freedom and human rights.

How to eliminate poverty? How about paying a worker enough for a 9 hour/ day, six days a week job so that he and his family of four can have three square meals, some clothes and a roof above their head that is warm and safe even if he is a garbage man or washing dishes in a restaurant and not working at three jobs and still unable to pay all the basic bills? Some billionairs and millionairs might earn 20 or 30 % less, but still enough to lead a life in luxury. It did work fine here in Germany until the Berlin Wall went down.

 

[Syrian Lion]

Why should I pay for your education and health care? I do not care if you feel you are obligated to pay for my education and health care. If you want to pay for my education and health care out of the goodness of your heart, I will gladly accept your charity, but explain to us all why is each of us is somehow legally burdened to pay for each other's education and health care.

If your god morally compelled you to give away X% of your wealth to the poor, that is between you and your god. But what give you the moral right to impose that agreement onto others?

you dont get it do you.... when there are poor people in societies that means more crimes and chaos... education is the only way to make sure those poor don't fall in doing crimes and chaos... your tax money that you pay does not even go to Americans, they go to terrorists for example in Syria....

the rich are also controlling politics , they can pass a bill that benefit them and hurt the poor easily..

 

[Ethiopian Dude]

You are forgetting the growing numbers of homeless people in America that don't have all those things you mentioned. And over the past four years 18 million Americans have joint the ranks of the food stamps recipients. That's on average more than 86000 a week ! And how does the poor in America afford all this stuff you mentioned ? Well, the Americans have almost a trillion dollars worth of credit card debt, people are taking out second mortgages on their homes to buy stuff they can't afford with their regular income. The availability of easy credits has helped to masked the inequality in America. The Americans are able to keep up this appearance of wealth because of the 0% interest rate and easy money policies coming from the FED. But that policy is destroying the value of the currency and deepening the imbalances in the economy even further. And its creating another bubble in the economy that's even bigger than the last one. Just like the housing bubble in the 2000's was bigger than the dotcom bubble in the 1990's. The bubble of the 2010's will be a sovereign bond bubble ie national insolvency.

you are spot on......... the american economy is a great illusion which depends on the dollar being the reserve currency......the dollars day are numbered it wont last more than five years max( 2018) when china starts the pan Asian gold exchange the Anglo american world order will crumble.

 

[HeinzG]

Look at India - India was an example of democratic socialist country which failed big time and started to flourish only after it started to open up the market. So socialism does not work as well.

I think that's because India biased heavily on socialism than capitalism. IMHO market should be opened to the public with fewer restrictions while service sectors like health care and education should be controlled by the government with some privatization.

 

[HeinzG]

my point was to have free education option

Oh I don't think you would like free education option if you visited SL.

I do believe that everyone should have free health care and education...

It is good to have such systems but that's not practical. Sooner or later bureaucracy steps in and everything falls apart.

 

[Syrian Lion]

Oh I don't think you would like free education option if you visited SL.



It is good to have such systems but that's not practical. Sooner or later bureaucracy steps in and everything falls apart.

well there will be option, you go to private school or you can go to school for free... so both benefit, the private sector and public...

well I know Canada has free health care, I know their population is small, but it seems like its working ?

 

[HeinzG]

well I know Canada has free health care, I know their population is small, but it seems like its working ?

I do not know about Canada. But in Sri Lanka situation is not that public friendly. It's all due to bureaucracy.

 

[HeinzG]

It did work fine here in Germany until the Berlin Wall went down.

I didn't get this. Please can you clarify a little?