Octopus Overlords

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.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri May 18, 2018 3:33 pm

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.

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.

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.

Kraken wrote:I think what you mean to say is "White collar crime hits all-time low!"

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.

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.

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.

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.

Kraken wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 6:15 pm

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 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.

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:15 pm

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.

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:15 pmFDR had a 74-17 senate after the 1936 elections.

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.

malchior wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 7:52 pm

Kraken wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 6:15 pm

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.

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.

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.

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Jul 06, 2021 8:56 pmI 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.

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...

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.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Thu Jul 08, 2021 4:21 pm

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.

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.

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.

Holman wrote: ↑Thu Jul 08, 2021 8:15 pm

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.