Mupainurpleasure
Posts: 393
Joined: 4/12/2012 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote:
ORIGINAL: Mupainurpleasure The intial protests were about economic injustice. they talked about the massive wall st bailouts and the instant return to mega bonuses finaced by goverment highlighted agains millions of folks loosing their homes. And they thought standing in front of Wall St. was going to stop this? I have said all along that OWS's focus should have been on DC, with aims to cut the ties between Wall St. and the Federal Government. quote:
They talked about the danger we face when out society like today is one of intensely concentrated wealth and the accelaration of income inequality. if anyone thinks the top earners averaging 8 percent increases in earning a yr while seeing tax rates slashed and the low and middle earners seeimg negative income growth when allowing for increased medical insurance while making it harder to get a college degree and further slashing of the safety net is sustainable. I'd have to ask why? Why is concentrated wealth and a shrinking middle class, shrinking access to hugher education anything but a toxin to a demoratic consumer economy?pay raise top 1% last 30 yrs 275% bototm 20 percent 18%....unsustainableThe irony is it isnt immigrantds making us look like a latin american country it's wealth concentration Now, with ACitizens United that money equals speech and the 1 percent have 35 percent of it Gilded age campaign finance and wealth concentration will give us gildedage goverment and social unrest eventually When people cant move between classes, when born poormeans die poor and born rich doe rich when the rich literally are getting much richer and the poor poorer it's a time bomb. Thast movement lost it's way but the reeason it rose is unaddressed and a threat to long term stability as teedy Roosvelt reconized when he started the progressive era The implication here is that the wealth increase of the Top whatever percent has come at the expense of the bottom whatever expense. It hasn't. It doesn't. It won't. What is the demographic of the bottom 20%? Who is in the bottom 20%? What is the turnover rate in the bottom 20%? What is the turnover rate in the Top 1%? If I was 16 in 1980 and just starting my work life out, where would I come into the ratings? The bottom 20%. Where, do you suppose, most of the 16 year olds in 1980 were last year (the last 30 years or so)? I'd have to guess, "not in the bottom 20%." The only true problem with the bottom 20% only having a wealth increase of 18% is that what cost $1,000 in 1981 would cost $2,745 in 2011. I don't believe that's due to too much more than money printing at the Fed. it isnt an implication and it has and here is the facts to support it. Simply if in 1980 i produced a widget that and my labor made it worth an extra buck I got 60 cents of it in 2012 I got 49 and the other 11 went to shareholders. Add in they also had their tax rates halved and to fill therevenue gap we only talk about cutting programs for the lower class many that provide the path out of poverty and yeah it has been a drect transfer the share of profit from wealth labor creates has shifted and continues to. 2009 and 2010 were great yrs for the wealthy the corporations they own stock in saw 10 percent profits and cut wages the turnover rate betwen quintiles is the lowest in the g8 and looks more like a latin american country than post ww2 america and the right is advocating policies to further stagnate it. You read about my Dad..... whrere does he get money to go to MIT. To finance tax cuts for a class that is taking an increasing share of profits labor used to get from wealth creation we have cut the supoport that created the ladder up. In doing so we have created a resource pool of under utilized talent in the pooor and an artifical lift for the wealthy because we eliminate potential competition . You are compared to your fathers earning at peak not yorus at any age when looking at genrational class movement
|