noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri May 18, 2018 3:33 pm
Regardless, that's not the point of the article. It's that rich people don't even know they are rich.
That's the refocus I'm trying find. There was line we felt growing up. The trust fund baby line. Those who were going to have to work for everything and those who were going to receive, irrespective of their work ethic (most end up working very hard after they've had their college experience and continue to build wealth). That was the line for the rich who don't realize they're rich.
I don't equate that with 110.000 salary or even a 160,000 HH salary. So, the rich without knowing their rich is the exact thing I'm trying to realign, to rebulid my understanding of what it means to be a have or have not in the US in 2018. My filter is broken and I'm not even one of the rich.
LordMortis wrote: ↑Fri May 18, 2018 3:08 pm
So something is very off in my brain. A personal ven diagram of people who both have accumulated $1.2 million in wealth and who "only" make $110,000 a year is very small group of people whom are essentially retirees or single haorders like myself (who does not have $1.2 near his sights, nor will he when he retires)
So I have some re-alignment to do, I guess...
It's not easy, but it's not so far out of the realm of possibility as to be impossible.
Saving 20k per year (keep in mind this would include 401ks + matching) and a historical average 7% real return on stocks will get you to 1.2 million after roughly 23 years. This doesn't include house leverage and appreciation.
15k per year gets you there in 27 years.
10k in 32 years.
6k in 40, or a career from 25 to 65. Think about that for a second. $500 per month including 40ks gets you to 1.2 million net worth.
And that's just in actual savings and doesn't include assets like a house.
Donald Trump is deliberately forcing millions of Americans into financial ruin, cruelly depriving them of food and other basic protections while lavishing vast riches on the super-wealthy, the United Nations monitor on poverty has warned.
Philip Alston, the UN special rapporteur who acts as a watchdog on extreme poverty around the world, has issued a withering critique of the state of America today. Trump is steering the country towards a “dramatic change of direction” that is rewarding the rich and punishing the poor by blocking access even to the most meager necessities.
...
The Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz told the Guardian it was profoundly important that international observers were speaking out about Trump’s impact. “This administration inherited a bad situation with inequality in the US and is now fanning the flames and worsening the situation. What is so disturbing is that Trump, rather than taking measures to ameliorate the problem, is taking measures to aggravate it.”
...
The scrutiny now falling on Trump from the UN is significant in that the US stands increasingly as an outlier in the world community. Alston’s report adds to a mounting body of criticism emanating from global organisations warning the US that unless it pulls back from its current course it will end up isolated from all other developed countries.
The statistics speak for themselves. In 1980, the US and Europe stood side by side in terms of inequality – in both cases, the richest one percent earned about 10% of national income.
Fast forward to 2017, and in Europe the 1% has edged up to 12% of national income. But in America the same elite now gobbles up 20%.
Last year, income inequality in the United States reached its highest level since the Census Bureau started tracking it in 1967, according to federal data released Thursday.
On Wednesday, President Trump declared just the opposite. “Wages are up and inequality is down, something people don’t like writing about,’’ he said during a news conference in New York.
...
The Gini index measures wealth distribution across a population, with zero representing total equality and 1 representing total inequality, where all wealth is concentrated in a single household. The indicator has been rising steadily during the past several decades. When the Census Bureau began studying income inequality more than 50 years ago, the Gini index was 0.397. In 2018, the Gini index rose to 0.485.
By comparison, no European country had a Gini index greater than 0.38 between 2017 and 2018.
Let’s look at GDP, or the value of goods and services produced, to understand how the two parties are divided. These days, Democratic House districts are doing substantially better: Two-thirds of the nation’s GDP comes from those areas, with Republican districts making up the rest...
...This is striking, because the Republican share of GDP is shrinking. Even though the party controls more House districts than a decade ago, those districts account for less economic activity, Brookings Institution data show.
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
The criminal justice system has given up all pretense that the crimes of the wealthy are worth taking seriously. In January 2019, white-collar prosecutions fell to their lowest level since researchers started tracking them in 1998. Even within the dwindling number of prosecutions, most are cases against low-level con artists and small-fry financial schemes. Since 2015, criminal penalties levied by the Justice Department have fallen from $3.6 billion to roughly $110 million. Illicit profits seized by the Securities and Exchange Commission have reportedly dropped by more than half. In 2018, a year when nearly 19,000 people were sentenced in federal court for drug crimes alone, prosecutors convicted just 37 corporate criminals who worked at firms with more than 50 employees.
With few exceptions, the only rich people America prosecutes anymore are those who victimize their fellow elites. Pharma frat boy Martin Shkreli, to pick just one example, wasn’t prosecuted for hiking the price of a drug used to treat HIV from $13.50 to $750 per pill. He went to prison for scamming investors in a hedge fund scheme years before.
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Zarathud wrote: ↑Tue Apr 15, 2014 11:04 pm
Candidates who spend their own money are called out on it on the campaign trail, and (at least in Illinois) often prove to be poor candidates. Watch for Dubin to beat perennial self-funded Obwereis soundly -- Oberweis is already trying to equate his $1.3 million gross income with Durbin's $280,000 because they're both millionaires.
Republican Jim Oberweis attended orientation for new House members on Thursday and Friday, even though the Associated Press projected Rep. Lauren Underwood, D-Ill., the winner of their 14th Congressional District race.
Every two years in the week after the election, the House Committee on Administration runs two days of briefings and training for newly elected members.
...
Thursday afternoon, the AP called the 14th District race for freshman Underwood, from Naperville. At that point, the count put her 4,288 votes ahead of Oberweis, a state senator from Sugar Grove. Since then, with more mail and provisional ballots counted, Underwood has increased her lead to 4,688, according to the AP.
Oberweis spokesman Travis Akin told reporters Thursday that Oberweis would not concede and would seek a recount.
On Friday, Akin said Oberweis “was on the plane when the AP called the race” on Thursday.
...
Akin said Oberweis attending the sessions was not an “in your face” statement. It was “something he was advised to do so he did,” Akin said. New member orientation is held only once.
Tax cuts for the wealthy have long drawn support from conservative lawmakers and economists who argue that such measures will "trickle down" and eventually boost jobs and incomes for everyone else. But a new study from the London School of Economics says 50 years of such tax cuts have only helped one group — the rich.
The new paper, by David Hope of the London School of Economics and Julian Limberg of King's College London, examines 18 developed countries — from Australia to the United States — over a 50-year period from 1965 to 2015. The study compared countries that passed tax cuts in a specific year, such as the U.S. in 1982 when President Ronald Reagan slashed taxes on the wealthy, with those that didn't, and then examined their economic outcomes.
But the analysis discovered one major change: The incomes of the rich grew much faster in countries where tax rates were lowered. Instead of trickling down to the middle class, tax cuts for the rich may not accomplish much more than help the rich keep more of their riches and exacerbate income inequality, the research indicates.
CNBC were reporting the first of the 401k generation is beginning to retire. They used this as a means to talk about 401K offering annuities, but it does make me wonder, as being pensionless becomes a common thing, so to does becoming divorced from company health care by people who are going to need it. A thought that has long since been very near to my heart surgery. Are we going to start hearing more about health care divorced from employment as more people hit an age where ACA/medicaid/medicare is it for them?
Biden wants to lower the eligibility age for Medicare to 60 and expand it to cover dental and vision care. He also wants to establish a national paid family leave policy for caregivers and expand home health care options for the elderly. All or most of that can be done via reconciliation if the party unites; realistically, though, it will require a larger Dem majority in the Senate. The ultimate goal is Medicare-for-all with private insurance, sold through the ACA, relegated to the Medigap role.
Of course, as long as the gilded age stretches on, Republicans will continue to tease their plan for health care or avoid the subject altogether. The best outcome would be that nothing changes.
Kraken wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 5:59 pm
Of course, as long as the gilded age stretches on, Republicans will continue to tease their plan for health care or avoid the subject altogether. The best outcome would be that nothing changes.
Kraken wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 5:59 pm
Biden wants to lower the eligibility age for Medicare to 60 and expand it to cover dental and vision care. He also wants to establish a national paid family leave policy for caregivers and expand home health care options for the elderly. All or most of that can be done via reconciliation if the party unites; realistically, though, it will require a larger Dem majority in the Senate. The ultimate goal is Medicare-for-all with private insurance, sold through the ACA, relegated to the Medigap role.
Lowering the Medicare age to 60 would have huge fiscal impacts both on the government and the private sector. I don't think it is a question of the balance of the chamber. Every healthcare insurance provider, major hospital system, etc. would lose their minds. I won't say never but it seems impossible with oligarchs deciding our national priorities.
Of course, as long as the gilded age stretches on, Republicans will continue to tease their plan for health care or avoid the subject altogether. The best outcome would be that nothing changes.
Which is the most likely result. Look at the minor freakout when the Corporations thought the corporate tax rate would go up from 22 to 25% to pay for a big infrastructure bill. They had meltdowns and every newspaper in the country was screaming about inflation. We're not the kind of country that will commit treasure to big internal initiatives anymore since the people who'd have to pay don't give a flying fig about America anymore.
malchior wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 6:04 pm
Look at the minor freakout when the Corporations thought the corporate tax rate would go up from 22 to 25% to pay for a big infrastructure bill. They had meltdowns and every newspaper in the country was screaming about inflation. We're not the kind of country that will commit treasure to big internal initiatives anymore since the people who'd have to pay don't give a flying fig about America anymore.
Those tax hikes were tabled for the bipartisan infrastructure charade. They will be back in the reconciliation bill that will either follow or substitute for the bipartisan bill...IF the Dems can unite. That's the significance of getting Manchin behind the doomed election reform vote today -- to demonstrate that they can get to 50.
malchior wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 6:04 pm
Look at the minor freakout when the Corporations thought the corporate tax rate would go up from 22 to 25% to pay for a big infrastructure bill. They had meltdowns and every newspaper in the country was screaming about inflation. We're not the kind of country that will commit treasure to big internal initiatives anymore since the people who'd have to pay don't give a flying fig about America anymore.
Those tax hikes were tabled for the bipartisan infrastructure charade. They will be back in the reconciliation bill that will either follow or substitute for the bipartisan bill...IF the Dems can unite.
Maybe. We'll see. Everyone keeps talking about some long-term strategy. I think it's wishful thinking and I to be clear actually don't particularly care about the tax in particular. It was more a test case for their ability to govern. What I cared about was seeing how everyone would react to the idea. And it was all too typical: big money blasted propaganda onto all the airwaves, they changed the discussion away from infrastructure and made it some bullshit charade about bipartisansanship, and we saw the usual forces retreat to protect wealth. As far as I'm concerned everything is all kabuki theater until we see wealth make an actual concession. I'll keep holding my breath.
That's the significance of getting Manchin behind the doomed election reform vote today -- to demonstrate that they can get to 50.
I guess but that should be a ridiculously low bar. What I suspect the GOP saw in that is that BIden has little leverage over his coalition and they'll keep undermining him without challenge via Manchin/Sinema. The FDR big legacy stuff they were talking about 3 months ago? It's dead, Jim.
malchior wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 7:52 pm
I guess but that should be a ridiculously low bar. What I suspect the GOP saw in that is that BIden has little leverage over his coalition and they'll keep undermining him without challenge via Manchin/Sinema. The FDR big legacy stuff they were talking about 3 months ago? It's dead, Jim.
malchior wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 7:52 pm
I guess but that should be a ridiculously low bar. What I suspect the GOP saw in that is that BIden has little leverage over his coalition and they'll keep undermining him without challenge via Manchin/Sinema. The FDR big legacy stuff they were talking about 3 months ago? It's dead, Jim.
FDR had a 74-17 senate after the 1936 elections.
Biden's only six months into a two-year reign, and he's played the Senate from inside and out for a very long time. I'm not writing him off yet.
Holman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:15 pmFDR had a 74-17 senate after the 1936 elections.
Yup - I get that. That was the media narrative and a lot of more realistic people were like...how is this going to work? As we are seeing...it won't.
Kraken wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:36 pmBiden's only six months into a two-year reign, and he's played the Senate from inside and out for a very long time. I'm not writing him off yet.
I also get this but the path I thought would need to be taken was exceedingly narrow and they've already fallen off it. I'm seeing other assessments largely in line with mine. Obviously things can change but the risk our democracy is essentially over is unacceptably high and he is sort of invisible about it. If they can't get voting rights they need to do something for this base or the Democrats risk them not turning out. And who'd blame them after they get *this* after risking their health to turn out.
malchior wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 6:04 pm
Look at the minor freakout when the Corporations thought the corporate tax rate would go up from 22 to 25% to pay for a big infrastructure bill. They had meltdowns and every newspaper in the country was screaming about inflation. We're not the kind of country that will commit treasure to big internal initiatives anymore since the people who'd have to pay don't give a flying fig about America anymore.
Those tax hikes were tabled for the bipartisan infrastructure charade. They will be back in the reconciliation bill that will either follow or substitute for the bipartisan bill...IF the Dems can unite.
WASHINGTON — A key moderate Democratic senator opened the door Tuesday to investing in President Joe Biden's "human infrastructure" proposals and unwinding some of the Republican tax cuts of 2017.
Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who is working to ink a bipartisan deal to fund physical infrastructure, expressed openness to a separate filibuster-proof package to make economic investments, although he said the size and scope have yet to be determined.
While I'm sure he will force compromises to no advantage, the Dems can probably count on 50 votes for some core (tbd) of their ambitious social agenda.
I meant this thread to be more sweeping than the daily political ebb and flow, but insofar as we're watching the New Progressive Era being born or aborted, it's on topic (he intoned).
The wealthy are well aware that the rabble are at their door, looking for blood. This was why they supported Trump — protection.
"A lie can run round the world before the truth has got its boots on." -Terry Pratchett, The Truth "The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to those who think they've found it." -Terry Pratchett, Monstrous Regiment
Zarathud wrote: ↑Tue Jul 06, 2021 8:28 pm
The wealthy are well aware that the rabble are at their door, looking for blood. This was why they supported Trump — protection.
I don't think so.
The world's richest man (or 2nd or 3rd, whatever) can comfortably crush union organizing in his warehouses while building a private space program as a hobby, and even the "liberal" media lines up to give him glowing profiles. His chief financial rival does the same thing while getting Cool Cred for smoking weed on the Manly Man's Manly Podcast For Manly Common Men.
The world's richest man (or 2nd or 3rd, whatever) can comfortably crush union organizing in his warehouses while building a private space program as a hobby, and even the "liberal" media lines up to give him glowing profiles.
And yet still treats his employees like garbage. It's the American way I guess. USA USA...
Capitalism tries for a delicate balance: It attempts to work things out so that everyone gets just enough stuff to keep them from getting violent and trying to take other people’s stuff.
Octavious wrote: ↑Wed Jul 07, 2021 11:13 am
And yet still treats his employees like garbage. It's the American way I guess. USA USA...
How do you figure? Nearly every Amazon worker I know loves it. And while that's skewed to AWS folk, my nephew has been heavily recruited by his friends for warehouse work.
When the starting wage is $14/hr where I live...($15.35 is median for all US workers... not starting) that doesn't sound like garbage to me.
Black Lives Matter
"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
You can easily find a ton of examples where they have little to no regard for the safety of their workers in factories. I do think recently they have been trying to improve their image in that regard, but that was after getting too much bad press. Stories about people peeing in bottles because they don't have time to go to the bathroom. Ambulances outside waiting for people that drop from the heat... Sounds like my office now that I think about it.
Capitalism tries for a delicate balance: It attempts to work things out so that everyone gets just enough stuff to keep them from getting violent and trying to take other people’s stuff.
Octavious wrote: ↑Thu Jul 08, 2021 4:10 pm
You can easily find a ton of examples where they have little to no regard for the safety of their workers in factories. I do think recently they have been trying to improve their image in that regard, but that was after getting too much bad press. Stories about people peeing in bottles because they don't have time to go to the bathroom. Ambulances outside waiting for people that drop from the heat... Sounds like my office now that I think about it.
I do not think it's fair to hold the CEO's character in question over the actions of some 1st level managers. I highly doubt that Bezos feels missed time and worker's compensation is all that productive. YMMV.
Black Lives Matter
"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
When it is a repeated issue that has made the news over and over, and it's caused by corporate policy, it's fair to hold the person most able to bring about change responsible.
Octavious wrote: ↑Thu Jul 08, 2021 4:10 pm
You can easily find a ton of examples where they have little to no regard for the safety of their workers in factories. I do think recently they have been trying to improve their image in that regard, but that was after getting too much bad press. Stories about people peeing in bottles because they don't have time to go to the bathroom. Ambulances outside waiting for people that drop from the heat... Sounds like my office now that I think about it.
I do not think it's fair to hold the CEO's character in question over the actions of some 1st level managers. I highly doubt that Bezos feels missed time and worker's compensation is all that productive. YMMV.
Edit: Note that I think Amazon is a good company and the disruption isn't the issue -- though it would also have been great if they weren't so anticompetitive at times too -- or that they made tons of money. What I think is they could have done it while paying good wages, without years of stories about people crying at their desks, and without all the injuries. And Bezos is absolutely responsible for all that.
Creating literally unimaginable personal wealth from the labor of people barely getting by seems like a systemic problem rather than a systemic goal. Or does that make me a filthy Marxist?
Without putting measures in place to cap success, there's no way to prevent some from rising above others. I have days where I think capitalism is fine, and others where I don't. But I know enough to realize I have no clue as to how to resolve wealth disparity. It's a far more human issue than I believe most think it is.
hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Jul 08, 2021 8:08 pm
Without putting measures in place to cap success, there's no way to prevent some from rising above others. I have days where I think capitalism is fine, and others where I don't. But I know enough to realize I have no clue as to how to resolve wealth disparity. It's a far more human issue than I believe most think it is.
America has been at its best for everyone--rich and poor alike--when taxes on extreme wealth were very high, when monopolies were broken up, when financial laws were vigorous and enforced, and when politics was not completely driven by private donations.
hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Jul 08, 2021 8:08 pm
Without putting measures in place to cap success, there's no way to prevent some from rising above others. I have days where I think capitalism is fine, and others where I don't. But I know enough to realize I have no clue as to how to resolve wealth disparity. It's a far more human issue than I believe most think it is.
Especially when it's random people voting you a billionaire. Effectively, Holman thinks the government should confiscate 99.99% of Bezos's ownership of Amazon because other people like his company. Echo Musk, Buffett, etc.
Black Lives Matter
"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Jul 08, 2021 8:08 pm
Without putting measures in place to cap success, there's no way to prevent some from rising above others. I have days where I think capitalism is fine, and others where I don't. But I know enough to realize I have no clue as to how to resolve wealth disparity. It's a far more human issue than I believe most think it is.
America has been at its best for everyone--rich and poor alike--when taxes on extreme wealth were very high, when monopolies were broken up, when financial laws were vigorous and enforced, and when politics was not completely driven by private donations.
That's it. That's the solution.
While -income- taxes were extremely high, none of the rest is consistent nor unique to back in the day.
Black Lives Matter
"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
