How Wealth Is ACTUALLY Distributed In The US

[Hoofbite]

I saw SP post this in another thread:







And then it reminded me of a video I watched just last night.

Enjoy.




[video=youtube;QPKKQnijnsM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM[/video]

 

[superpunk]

im going to actually watch this one, not the one midswat posted

 

[Hoofbite]

im going to actually watch this one, not the one midswat posted

Did he actually post one in that thread? I guess I missed it. My bad, Mid.

 

[superpunk]

That was fucking phenomenal.

 

[2233boys]

Pretty mind blowing disparity.

 

[Hoofbite]

OT:

But I'd like to see a voter breakdown into the 5 segmented sections. Anyone know where such a thing exists?

 

[2233boys]

http://www.statista.com/statistics/...e-exit-polls-of-the-2012-elections-by-income/

 

[peplaw06]

The term "distribute" implies that someone is giving the wealth out disproportionately.

In actuality, this is how wealth is earned in America.

So what's the solution? Tax the top 1% at a 90% rate?

 

[Sheik]

Seriously, fuck poor people.

 

[ThoughtExperiment]

The term "distribute" implies that someone is giving the wealth out disproportionately.

In actuality, this is how wealth is earned in America.

So what's the solution? Tax the top 1% at a 90% rate?

You're being facetious, but some of these guys probably believe the answer should be yes...

Gotta love that vid, though. Like asking if the CEO works 380x as hard as his average worker. unce

 

[VTA]

The term "distribute" implies that someone is giving the wealth out disproportionately.

In actuality, this is how wealth is earned in America.

So what's the solution? Tax the top 1% at a 90% rate?

haha. I guess you just hate the poor.

I think a great question at this point would be: what is the time frame of this scale? Has it always been this way? Is it a consequence of a President from 30 years ago, while a much lauded President and his economic record of more recent times is somehow leap frogged?

How do you know the success of a mans labors? Is it the fruits borne and what he leaves his successors? Or what he did for his own name and legacy?

Let's see:
Reagan inherited a sad state of a nation in turmoil and left his successors with much breathing room to grow and prosper this nation to the pinnacle of it's very existence.

What did the Clinton years bear? A crippled housing market, a faltering surplus for his successor and a host of unanswered militant attacks against our nation. Obviously he can't be blamed for his successors failures anymore than Obama's predecessor--- oh wait. never mind.

But hey don't look at the results of a Presidency, listen the alternate version Krugman offers and call yourself informed.

Admittedly, Bush is no Ron but Obama is Carter on roids with much pop culture delusion heaped in to convince people that he really does care about the Middle Class he's gutting as we speak. A people who really think wealth is distributed and not earned. Yeah, sounds great in theory until it starts affecting the dopes championing this idea. Then they can blame Reagan some more. lol

 

[NoDak]

Seriously, fuck poor people.

That's what I'm talking about.

 

[Hoofbite]

The term "distribute" implies that someone is giving the wealth out disproportionately.

In actuality, this is how wealth is earned in America.

So what's the solution? Tax the top 1% at a 90% rate?

Or it just refers to the frequency of how shit falls. Normal distributions and whatnot. Almost unfathomable that bell curves hold so much weight in statistics when it's normal distribution implies that the measurements haven't actually occurred by themselves but have been deliberately spread out by the experimenting party.

You're right though. I should have just used the title of the video because "Inequality" is a term with far fewer implications.

 

[Hoofbite]

haha. I guess you just hate the poor.

I think a great question at this point would be: what is the time frame of this scale? Has it always been this way? Is it a consequence of a President from 30 years ago, while a much lauded President and his economic record of more recent times is somehow leap frogged?

How do you know the success of a mans labors? Is it the fruits borne and what he leaves his successors? Or what he did for his own name and legacy?

Let's see:
Reagan inherited a sad state of a nation in turmoil and left his successors with much breathing room to grow and prosper this nation to the pinnacle of it's very existence.

What did the Clinton years bear? A crippled housing market, a faltering surplus for his successor and a host of unanswered militant attacks against our nation. Obviously he can't be blamed for his successors failures anymore than Obama's predecessor--- oh wait. never mind.

But hey don't look at the results of a Presidency, listen the alternate version Krugman offers and call yourself informed.

Admittedly, Bush is no Ron but Obama is Carter on roids with much pop culture delusion heaped in to convince people that he really does care about the Middle Class he's gutting as we speak. A people who really think wealth is distributed and not earned. Yeah, sounds great in theory until it starts affecting the dopes championing this idea. Then they can blame Reagan some more. lol

There is some reference to time in that he compared 1976 to 2012 in one aspect. Towards the end of the video.

 

[peplaw06]

I should have just used the title of the video because "Inequality" is a term with far fewer implications.

So the ideal is that everyone earns an equal amount then? Is that regardless of what they choose to do?

 

[JBond]

Seriously, fuck poor people.

Drone strikes on all the trailer communities. Get Obama to add them to the list.

 

[Sheik]

Yup.

Time for a good ole holocaust.


Sure, people will mourn for a bit, but us Americans get over shit quick. Just plan it for just before one of those shitty movies come out, like twilight 8 or Madea 27.

 

[Hoofbite]

So the ideal is that everyone earns an equal amount then? Is that regardless of what they choose to do?

I'm not sure where you got that from based on my post. I was just pointing out the term "distribution" isn't as narrowly applicable as your post seemed to indicate.

I honestly didn't choose "distribution" for any particular reason. Likely cause I was listening to the video as I was typing and heard the guy say it.

"Inequality", "distribution", whatever. Not sure it really makes much of a difference in the context of the video and I think the term "inequality" is likely more suggestive than "distribution". Just my take on it.

 

[jeebus]

Except for one difference the income distribution for 99.9% of the country is exactly the same as it was in 1860 and only slightly more top heave than 1790.

The difference, the .01% now control 5% more of the GDP than they did at any other time. So basically with the .01% thrown in it makes it look like the top 10% are monopoloizing everything from the lower 90, but really 99.9% of the top 10 are in the exact situation they always were.

The problem is not the guy making $500,000 or even 5 million, the problem is the guys making 50 to 500 million. I challenge the value they add, while I see what a guy maming a million a year brings to the table.

 

[VTA]

Well how is this inequality leveled off?

What's interesting is that the free market can and would create a more acceptable equilibrium if people only accepted some responsibility for how these things take shape in the first place.

Teachers, firefighters are all the poster types for these sort of arguments, while celebs and athletes are the arch-typical non-deserving recipients, along with the dreaded "CEO'S'… Well. Who supports them? Who buys their product, regardless of quality at a voracious pace of consumer consumption?

Would you really like to create an economic balance? Stop buying, wearing, paying to sit in your own house to watch total strangers glorify themselves. Stop buying junk you (there's a generic you for ya) do not need but are merely creature comforts. Sports franchises are owned by OH MY CEO'S! Exercise your freedom and dump them out of your pocket. Dump cable, who also tithes to the athletic-celebrity population who aren't lauded as valueable as the teacher, firefight, soldier, yet are ricipients of your monthly cable tithe.

The money saved by dumping that ridiculous cable bill can be better used by giving to school fundraisers and going to their little Choral Performances and Drama Club productions. Give to the monthly or bi-monthly or annual Fire Department drives that make the rounds. Give to the PBA. You'll see better funded teachers, Firemen, etc…

But these things won't happen. These are logical ideals that aren't fed out by political mouthpieces, so obviously they won't work. Despite how logical they really are. Those people are to be funded by some ambiguous tax law, sort of like a trickle down charity that you know some politician will not dare to interfere with. :/

Instead, the newest iWhateverplasticshitbox will arrive at a ridiculous cost and with a monthly bill to ensure you can talk shit on the interwebs on the go! Netflix, Android, Apple and Samsung will prove that personal entertainment soundly trumps the false notion that altruistic claims and notions of fair play are truly at the heart of these discussions, videos and disingenuous claims designed to tug at the heart strings of our compassion.