Does your perception of wealth distribution accurately reflect reality?

[Fat Elvis]

Just curious how close your (both conservatives and liberals) perception of wealth distribution reflects the reality of wealth distribution in the United States. Be honest. If our perceptions about reality are rightly or wrongly skewed one way or another, it helps to clarify why we (both liberals and conservatives) believe some of the things we do.

[2bikemike]

I think the guy in the video said it all. The reason Socialism doesn't work is because in creates less incentive. This is what welfare has become. It has created less incentive for many to continue on the system.

He also stated about who owns all the investments. It takes money to make money. Which is why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Rich people and the upper middle class tend to invest their disposable income. Way too many people are just consuming their disposable income.

I see it all too often people crying poor but yet driving newer cars and spending continuously to try and stay up with the latest technology. Watching their $150 plus in cable channels, talking on cell phone plans that are costing $100 plus.

While I have a good paying job, good investments and manage my money pretty well, I could easily lop $300 a month off my bills.

I have never read Dave Ramsey but I would bet that the folks dumping their debt have eliminated a lot of the things like expensive cable TV and Cell phone plans.

[chiefzilla1501]

I don't make apologies for people who game the system at the taxpayer expense.

I don't know why people make apologies for a system that has no problem feeding a disproportionate amount of wealth to rich people. I have no problem with rich people earning money in a capitalistic fashion. But executive compensation is an unbelievably big problem that the right refuses to acknowledge. And our economy is never going to correct itself as long as executives are hoarding cash instead of investing into growing their companies again. In many cases, it's not the fault of rich executives -- who wouldn't want more money? In many cases, it absolutely is when they purposefully work against the interests of the company to fill their own pockets with more money.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

LOL 40% of the wealth is in the hands of 1% of the population and this thread devolves into welfare, and spending habits. Only on CP...

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by WoodDraw

I wonder what "upward mobility" rate in the US now really is. I suspect it's not as encouraging as people think.

There are plenty of jobs in more high-level or skill positions. Upward mobility is fine for those who already have very good, high-paying jobs.

It isn't for anyone else and there's a lot of reasons for it. Stupid regulations have made navigating an HR system an absolute nightmare --shitty workers are stuck in great jobs because they can't be fired, whereas good workers have to climb mountains to get promoted or earn a raise that isn't a specific % of earnings.

But more than anything, and I've said this before, it has everything to do with greedy executives compensated on today. The private and public sector needs to focus on continual re-training of our work force. If you develop your work force, they develop the agility and mobility to move around to different lines of work. If you don't, they become reliant on one job only.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

LOL 40% of the wealth is in the hands of 1% of the population and this thread devolves into welfare, and spending habits. Only on CP...

Yes, and keep in mind that much of that 1% are earning greater wealth in spite of an economy that is in recession.

So bullshit to the idea that a lot of the rich are earning their fair share. If the economy tanks, that means the companies tanking within that economy shouldn't have employees making significantly more money.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

The top 1% in this country haven't worked a day in their lives. Outside of the once in a generation new members like Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerburg.

[Loneiguana]

Looks like I have to post these figures again. If you think we have a welfare problem in this country, it is caused by under compensation for the middle and lower class, not because the average American is lazy.

The average American works harder, longer, for less money and benefits than thirty years ago. Where has the money gone? Well, the video shows that.

The American CEO is the most overpaid individual on this planet. Outsource CEO labor.


Source: cbpp.org (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities) "Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households". Feb. 10 2012

From the CBPP:
"A new CBPP analysis of budget and Census data, however, shows that more than 90 percent of the benefit dollars that entitlement and other mandatory programs[1] spend go to assist people who are elderly, seriously disabled, or members of working households — not to able-bodied, working-age Americans who choose not to work. (See Figure 1.) This figure has changed little in the past few years."

"Moreover, if we look only at entitlement programs that are targeted to people with low incomes, the percentage of benefit dollars going to people who are elderly or disabled or members of working households remains high. Five of every six benefit dollars in these programs — 83 percent — go to such people.

If anything, these figures understate the percentage of the benefits that generally go to people who are elderly, disabled, or members of working households. As noted, these data are for fiscal year 2010, a year when the unemployment rate averaged 9.6 percent and an unusually large number of Americans were in economic distress. In fiscal year 2007, the share of entitlement benefits going to people who are elderly or disabled or members of working households was a bit higher.

In short, both the current reality and the trends of recent decades contrast sharply with the critics’ assumption that social programs increasingly are supporting people who can work but choose not to do so. In the 1980s and 1990s, the United States substantially reduced assistance to the jobless poor (through legislation such as the 1996 welfare law) while increasing assistance to low-income working families (such as through expansions of the Earned Income Tax Credit). The safety net became much more “work-based.” In addition, the U.S. population is aging, which raises the share of benefits going to seniors and people with disabilities."

[Loneiguana]

Originally Posted by WoodDraw

I wonder what "upward mobility" rate in the US now really is. I suspect it's not as encouraging as people think.

Source: theatlanticcities .com; "The high Inequality of U.S. Metro Areas Compared to Countries" Oct. 9, 2012

"Income inequality in America has reached levels not seen since the Gilded Age. As Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, noted in June, “America has the highest level of inequality of any of the advanced countries — and its gap with the rest has been widening."

"The Martin Prosperity Institute's Zara Matheson mapped data for 362 metros (based on an analysis by the institute's Charlotta Mellander). The team used country-level data from the CIA's World Factbook and metro-level data from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2008-2010 American Community Survey. They relied upon the Gini coefficient as their measurement for inequality, which is a numerical rating on a scale from .00 (perfectly equal) to 1.00 (most unequal).

The Gini coefficient for the United States as a whole is .450, about the same as Iran and the Philippines. For comparison’s sake, the Gini coefficient for Sweden, the world’s most-equal country, is .230. Denmark’s is .248, Germany’s is .270 and Canada’s is .321. The most unequal countries in the world have Gini coefficients between .60 to roughly .70. Though none of America’s metros score that high, the picture is still not a pretty one. Most large metros (with over one million people) have inequality levels that are equal to or above the U.S. average.

The Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk (.537) metro — which includes not just the gritty factory town that gives it its name, but stately Westport and über-affluent Greenwich — shares a Gini ranking with Thailand (.536). “The richest Thais earn 14.7 times more than the poorest,” said Gwi-Yeop Son, an United Nations Development Programme representative, a few years ago. “The bottom 60 percent of the population's share of the income is only 25 percent.”
The disparity between New York’s (.504) richest and poorest is comparable to what you’d find in Swaziland (.504), a place not generally noted for its economic dynamism or quality of life (its average life expectancy is the lowest in the world).
Los Angeles’s inequality (.485) is the equivalent of the Dominican Republic (.484).
Chicago (.468) is like El Salvador (.469).
Detroit (.457) matches up with the Philippines (.458).
San Francisco's (.475) inequality is similar to Madagascar's (.475).
Dallas (.463) is like Malaysia (.462).
Inequality in Denver (.455) is comparable to Jamaica’s (.455).
Seattle’s Gini (.439) is similar to Nigeria (.437).

On the flip side, the Twin Cities of Minneapolis St. Paul (.436), Greater Washington, D.C. (.435), Las Vegas (.429), Honolulu (.421), Salt Lake City (.417), and several others stand out as having among the lowest levels of inequality, though these levels are in line with China (.415) and Russia (.422).

Just five U.S. metros have inequality levels below .4 — Fairbanks, Alaska (.399); Monroe, Michigan (.398); Appleton (.395) and Sheboygan (.393), Wisconsin; and Ogden-Clearfield, Utah (.389) — values which are still greater than the level of inequality found in India (.368)."

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by nstygma

what is wrong with me?
i watched the video and not once did i feel envious or jealous of the people who have more wealth than me. I do not feel like they have too much, or that there is something "unfair" about the "share" they have.

Whatever you've got, I must have caught it too.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

The top 1% in this country haven't worked a day in their lives. Outside of the once in a generation new members like Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerburg.

Accepting this for the sake of argument, has it harmed you in any way? If so, how?

[chiefzilla1501]

CEOs are working the same crazy hours for often times recession-tanking companies, and the opportunity cost is that the same dollars to pay CEOs more money COULD be used to invest back into growing that business again. So CEOs are putting in the same work, achieving shitty results, and getting astronomical raises for it. Problem? You bet there is.

Let's forget about the lower-class. My experience being around upper middle class is that there is a pretty big section of the middle class forced to work far more hours for the same wage.

I don't know why we always pick sides. We have to get the lower class being more productive contributors to society, but the rich are also raiding the companies we work for and ultimately pillaging our economy. And yeah, it's true, it is the middle class that suffers, even the good ones. I think a lot of us could be a shitload more productive and a lot less stressed if we were allowed to build teams instead of having to keep so lean and require workers to work twice the hours as they would in a normal economy.

Originally Posted by Loneiguana

Looks like I have to post these figures again. If you think we have a welfare problem in this country, it is caused by under compensation for the middle and lower class, not because the average American is lazy.

The average American works harder, longer, for less money and benefits than thirty years ago. Where has the money gone? Well, the video shows that.

The American CEO is the most overpaid individual on this planet. Outsource CEO labor.


Source: cbpp.org (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities) "Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households". Feb. 10 2012

From the CBPP:
"A new CBPP analysis of budget and Census data, however, shows that more than 90 percent of the benefit dollars that entitlement and other mandatory programs[1] spend go to assist people who are elderly, seriously disabled, or members of working households — not to able-bodied, working-age Americans who choose not to work. (See Figure 1.) This figure has changed little in the past few years."

"Moreover, if we look only at entitlement programs that are targeted to people with low incomes, the percentage of benefit dollars going to people who are elderly or disabled or members of working households remains high. Five of every six benefit dollars in these programs — 83 percent — go to such people.

If anything, these figures understate the percentage of the benefits that generally go to people who are elderly, disabled, or members of working households. As noted, these data are for fiscal year 2010, a year when the unemployment rate averaged 9.6 percent and an unusually large number of Americans were in economic distress. In fiscal year 2007, the share of entitlement benefits going to people who are elderly or disabled or members of working households was a bit higher.

In short, both the current reality and the trends of recent decades contrast sharply with the critics’ assumption that social programs increasingly are supporting people who can work but choose not to do so. In the 1980s and 1990s, the United States substantially reduced assistance to the jobless poor (through legislation such as the 1996 welfare law) while increasing assistance to low-income working families (such as through expansions of the Earned Income Tax Credit). The safety net became much more “work-based.” In addition, the U.S. population is aging, which raises the share of benefits going to seniors and people with disabilities."

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by KCWolfman

Our "poor" live better lives than the "middle class" of other nations.

Good to see you around. You instantly and dramatically improve the quality of discussion around here by leaps and bounds.

[KCWolfman]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I don't make apologies for people who game the system at the taxpayer expense.

I don't know why people make apologies for a system that has no problem feeding a disproportionate amount of wealth to rich people. I have no problem with rich people earning money in a capitalistic fashion. But executive compensation is an unbelievably big problem that the right refuses to acknowledge. And our economy is never going to correct itself as long as executives are hoarding cash instead of investing into growing their companies again. In many cases, it's not the fault of rich executives -- who wouldn't want more money? In many cases, it absolutely is when they purposefully work against the interests of the company to fill their own pockets with more money.

Don't get me wrong, I don't support ANY kind of long term welfare - personal or corporate. But a company has a right to issue billions in executive incentives - it is their personal right, even if it drives them to bankruptcy. Let a company drive itself into the ground, and let's refuse to bail out the idiots instead of acting like our nation will become a wasteland when they fail.

[KCWolfman]

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

LOL 40% of the wealth is in the hands of 1% of the population and this thread devolves into welfare, and spending habits. Only on CP...

And 99% of the federal taxes paid in this nation are made by a mere 50%. Only the deluded would refuse to see the problem is on BOTH sides.

[KCWolfman]

Originally Posted by Loneiguana

L
"Moreover, if we look only at entitlement programs that are targeted to people with low incomes, the percentage of benefit dollars going to people who are elderly or disabled or members of working households remains high. Five of every six benefit dollars in these programs — 83 percent — go to such people.

"

I must work with all of the other 17% then.