>> ^manadren:

In Hanauer's defense, the partisan argument is BS and is rather telling. In this political climate, talking about income inequality in the US in any way that suggests the rich should pay more or doesn't outright enshrine the wealthy is automatically labeled left-wing communist propaganda trying to incite class warfare. So what else was he supposed to say?


The only thing you really need to incite class warfare is a massive gap between the "haves" and the "have nots", simply not talking about it will not hide the issue because most of us see it every single day.

In TED's defense, the talk isn't exactly ground breaking. He's saying things we've all heard before, and isn't really adding anything new to the conversation. That said it is a 3 minute talk, you can't really go into any kind of depth in that time frame.

In Hanauer's defense, the partisan argument is BS and is rather telling. In this political climate, talking about income inequality in the US in any way that suggests the rich should pay more or doesn't outright enshrine the wealthy is automatically labeled left-wing communist propaganda trying to incite class warfare. So what else was he supposed to say?

Here's the source.
http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/top10-percent-income-earners

courtesy of these guys:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation

Those numbers don't tell the entire story though.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

>> ^shinyblurry:

Not that I am a huge fan of those who horde wealth, but its just a bare fact that the top 10 percent pay 70 percent of all of the income tax in this country..the top 1 percent pays 40 percent of that. The bottom 50 percent pays all of 3 percent. So you really can't say they aren't paying their fair share.

Really? If you weren't watching this video or following this thread you'd be out solving the world's problems? C'mon. You think this argument takes some resources away from the Trayvon Martin case? You're here for entertainment, either for engagement or for distraction, and not to advance any world cause, just like the rest of us. Arguing is intellectual exercise. That's why I would do it, if I hadn't just learned the history this problem has of never getting resolved on the internet.>> ^VoodooV:
Don't get me wrong, the scientist in me loves stuff like this. But the argument just seems selfish in the perspective of larger concerns. I kinda feel the same way about the Hadron Collider. Like income inequality, there is a HUGE gap between the smartest of us, and the average citizen. I feel we should be closing that gap, instead of indulging the intellectual 1 percent.

Because it truly doesn't matter to anyone other than a mathematician or a physicist.....or people who like to argue on internet message boards.

.999... either equals one, or it equals a number absurdly close to one. It just does not matter in our practical lives.

Don't get me wrong, the scientist in me loves stuff like this. But the argument just seems selfish in the perspective of larger concerns. I kinda feel the same way about the Hadron Collider. Like income inequality, there is a HUGE gap between the smartest of us, and the average citizen. I feel we should be closing that gap, instead of indulging the intellectual 1 percent.

>> ^messenger:

FWIW, I was the one who sifted the Trayvon martin videos here, so at least I'm contributing to both sides. I guess I'm surprised that Sifters would be disinclined to accept a mathematical fact about a number. That's like just "disagreeing" with relativity because you can't picture it in your mind even though it's been proven to hold on all but the tiniest microscopic levels.>> ^VoodooV:
do a google search. It's been argued forever. Only thing it proves is how far we'll go to argue ridiculous things and the fucked up priorities of humanity.
we'll argue .999... for forever (or infinitely...zing!) but try and solve things like why kids like Trayvonn Martin still get senselessly shot or try and solve how we can take care all of our citizens regardless of income level. Ehh, we'll get around to it sometime.
It reveals just how truly absurd this shit is.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The Real "1 Percent" (80% of millionaires EARNED their money through hard work)
There is no grand conspiracy to "enforce" inequality, Nature does a fine job on her own.
Isn't Moyers' hogging of taxpayer dollars, leaving little or none for a less-leftist public TV political show a form of engineered inequality?
P.S. Lovable Chomsky is a millionaire and, quite rationally, has taken any and all steps to protect that money from taxation.


1. 80% of millionaires did not earn their money through hard work. That is part of the bullshit mythos too many wealthy people fall in to, namely how they did it ALL themselves without the aide of others. I've worked for millionaires (and beyond!) and too many of them consider their workers to be incidental components in their meteoric assent to greatness... blah blah blah.

2. Nature's conspiracy is nature's and man's conspiracy is man's. One doesn't negate the other, though they intersect from time to time.

3. You don't appear to be interested in defending millionaires or the 1%; you simply don't like it when, occasionally, some of them acknowledge income inequality or disparity in rates of taxation. It smacks of hypocrisy to you that a wealthy person might think they have it a little too good. I guess Bill Maher shouldn't have given HIS money to Obama's SuperPac because he's the wrong kind of millionaire. He should be ashamed he didn't keep that money for more hot tubbing and weed.

>> ^chilaxe:

>> ^Porksandwich:
@chilaxe
Not much I can argue there. You are there and I am not. But no major problems as the US is facing all across the nation is as simple as one problem or solution. So I find it hard to believe that California's only issue is immigration. And Im not denying that great influxes of people have lots of impact, but it's going to be a problem whether it's immigration or population growth.

Cognitive complexity is the master trait for success in complex societies, so when you substantially reduce the average cognitive ability of a state, you increase all socially undesirable metrics.
This includes poor academic scores, income inequality, poor medical outcomes, poor financial management, high crime, and poor child-rearing practices.
For example, basic things like parents taking their children to the dentist has plummeted here, even though it's free for lower-income people.


Of course, this constant insistence that complex issues be wholly caused by one simple factor hardly illustrates any cognitive complexity on your behalf. Nothing in this world, especially when it comes to social issues, is as simple as you're making this out to be.

>> ^Porksandwich:

@chilaxe
Not much I can argue there. You are there and I am not. But no major problems as the US is facing all across the nation is as simple as one problem or solution. So I find it hard to believe that California's only issue is immigration. And Im not denying that great influxes of people have lots of impact, but it's going to be a problem whether it's immigration or population growth.


Cognitive complexity is the master trait for success in complex societies, so when you substantially reduce the average cognitive ability of a state, you increase all socially undesirable metrics.

This includes poor academic scores, income inequality, poor medical outcomes, poor financial management, high crime, and poor child-rearing practices.

For example, basic things like parents taking their children to the dentist has plummeted here, even though it's free for lower-income people.

They're not just focusing on income inequality or ownership of resources. Just because one clip focuses on it doesn't mean that the entire movement is fixated on one stat. There are a lot of stats the left are focused on, such as unemployment to name another. And it's not a stupid statistic to focus on. If there is too much stratification of wealth, and there is such a thing, then what other statistic would illustrate that it's gotten out of hand?! For the good of the economy, for everyone across the income range, if the rich possess too much wealth, there won't be enough people with money to purchase goods and services being produced. This hasn't a thing to do with the little orphans you helped in Mexico.

Is it being trumped to the point it's being played like an emotional dagger instead of being analyzed rationally? Of course. But come on, if you're gonna sit there and say that only the left is guilty of that, then you're being partisan. How is raising the marginal tax rate on the super rich a few percentage points "communist" or even "socialist" on an objective scale? Or even using those words to elicit a knee jerk reaction by people to say it's bad just because of the word instead of rationally discussing the policy? Or when anyone suggests raising taxes on the rich, it's automatically "class warfare"? Or you using derogatory terms like "NeoProgLibNaziCommunistSocialist" blah? Give me a break.

And yes, some wealth stratification is good. You want the people who work hard or are more talented to have more income. It keeps incentives in the system. I have no problem with that. But you're pretending that the income gap between super rich and poor is static, which misses the entire point. It's not static. It fluctuates. We're too the point now where it's getting absurd to the point that it's hurting the economy. You're also pretending that the stats only illustrate the gap between the super-rich and the poor, and that's not the case. The stats are showing the gap between the rich and everyone else, including middle class, which is being decimated.

You have very little patience when you hear a college-age son's of yuppies whining about they only earn $30K/yr for their liberal art major degree? What about me, the son of a solid middle class family who got one of those horrible liberal art degrees (Master's in Education, Bachelor's in History, Minor in International Studies) and got a "fake job" as a history teacher in a public school? Are you kidding me with this? (BTW, what a good person you are to say whose jobs are of value and whose aren't!) What I did for a living for four years combined produced less value than a commodities trader did in one year, whose job is essentially speculation that artificially drives up prices on the things they trade? You don't find something extremely absurd about that?

Let's do the math. At those salaries, a public school teacher is producing less than 10% of the value of what a commodities trader does, and a commodities trader isn't even required to have a college degree, and we're not even including the better benefits and bonuses. I'm not naive enough to think a public school teacher would ever be paid that well, but when the gap is getting wider, and wider, and wider, and you're seeing a public school teacher's benefits getting reduced, particularly retirement, I'm sorry, but something is horribly wrong here. The market is failing to address a basic societal problem. I'm not advocating a state controlled economy (aka Communism) to even it out. I'm advocating the gov't make it moderately more equal by raising the rich's taxes, and ease up on the poor and middle class. Tax capital gains like it's income, subject to the same brackets, etc.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Or is that a typo for "ProgLibDytes"
As with "neolibs" it is a word of my own creation which I used to describe the crazed, hardcore, insane left-wing liberal denizens of the world. Neolib was my default for a long time, but lately the vitriol of the left has gotten so prone to hate, anger, and insanity that I have moved to defaulting with "ProgLibDyte" to describe them. It is perfect because it is so close to "Troglidyte" (cave dweller) and covers "Progressives" and "Liberals" together. ProgLibDytes. Cave dwelling political liberals and progressives. Brevity is the soul of wit.
Which one should we obsess over?
How about not picking just one, and looking at all of them - or at least a LOT of them? Regardless, examining only the gap between the ultra-rich and the poor is about one of the stupidest metrics one could examine when it comes to economics. It means absolutely nothing in terms of either real income, economic trending, or any other meaningful metric. Such a myopic stat serves only one purpose, and that is to angry up the blood of the lower class.
There are always going to be really rich people who have so much money that they could eat gold bricks and crap diamonds. These guys are always going to exist in the same nation as people so poor they scrape the very bottom of the economic barrel. The difference between the top 0.1% and the bottom 5% is utterly meaningless. It is pure nonsense to get mad about the difference between Bill Gates and the guy who pumps gas. It tells nothing about anything.
I personally donate my time to help the poor. I've helped the poorest of the poor in US cities and I thought I knew what 'poor' was. Then I volunteered to help little towns in Mexico. When kids and widows weep in your arms just because you came to them with a few bags of cement to put a small concrete slab in thier one room dirt-shanty then you know you've hit the real thing.
In the US, even those who live in so-called 'poverty' have cars, TVs, homes, cable, internet, clothes, and money to spend at McDonalds on a lark. So I have very little patience when I hear college-age son's-of-yuppies whining about the fact that they only earn $30K a year (with benefits) for thier liberal-art's major compared to Wall-Street guys (who are actually performing a real job) earning 300K plus cash bonuses. Boo-freaking-hoo.

You know it's getting bad for hardcore right wingers when they're coming up with ridiculous, incomprehensible names like "TrogLibDytes". Are those liberal followers of the almighty Trogdor, who looks to spread burnination among all peasants and their thatch-roof cottages?

Or is that a typo for "ProgLibDytes", which is similar, but with less majesty?

I can't tell anymore. You should just keep the name calling to terms like "Communist" and "Socialist". It's easier for people without a brain to follow you.

As for obsessing over one economic statistic, which economic statistics should we be focusing on? Unemployment rate? Which one is going to paint the economy the way you want it to be, not for how it is. You can't just pretend severe economic inequality doesn't exist just because the policies you favor led to it.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Sigh.
ProgLibDytes really need to get over thier obsession with the GINI index, which was created by a fascist as a trick to gin up the sheeple masses. The whole "Income Gap" is just a new label to a decades old fascist propoganda tool. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together sees such naked hate-mongering exactly for what it is. Obsessing over a single economic statistic is like using one pixel in a 24,000,000 pixel image to describe a whole thing.
People like Cunk and all the TrogLibDyte acolytes that slurp down all his verbal diarrhea love to talk about nothing but the income gap because it is one of the rare few economic stats (out of thousands) that strikes a chord with the masses who are ignorant of real economics. Same motive as the reason the fascists created the GINI index. Get people mad at a small target and they are easy to manipulate. Hows it feel, ProgLibDytes, knowing that you are so easily suckered in by the same tricks used by the Nazis? Obama's mentor - Saul Alinsky - would be proud as he literally wrote the book on methods for flim-flamming the slow and the stupid. Change one word in his rant, and you can't tell the difference betwen Cunk and Gobbels.

>> ^radx:

Not 30% of the country's wealth, but as much wealth as the bottom 30% of the country combined -- namely ~$70B.>> ^ghark:
My stomach did a double take when I heard the figures for the 6 walmart heirs. The 6 of them owning 30% of the countries wealth, that's just... sickening.


oops yea, cheers - thought something was wrong as I typed it.

Not 30% of the country's wealth, but as much wealth as the bottom 30% of the country combined -- namely ~$70B.>> ^ghark:

My stomach did a double take when I heard the figures for the 6 walmart heirs. The 6 of them owning 30% of the countries wealth, that's just... sickening.

Your video, Income Inequality and Bank Bonuses, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^conan:

to be fair: he rants about an average income of over 300k for the 39.000 Goldman employees, "even office supplies". it is an average after all. it does obiously not mean that the guy who pushes the mail cart makes six digit figures. averages are never a good way to judge. i really like TYT, but this one is flat out propaganda.


You're right about it being an average spread over the whole company.
You're wrong about it being the average "income."
He's talking about the Bonuses being paid--that's on top of the extravagant base pay that the bosses already take.

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker Thanks for displaying this website's bias expressed via a blatently crazy conspiracy theory - presented as one of the first things you can read on that page, no less.

"The plan was a simple one. The path to Obama’s second term requires that enough voters forget that our current economic woes are the fault of a failed President who enjoyed two years of having every single item on his wish-list passed by Congress. And so the idea was to create Occupy in order to give the MSM the cover they desired to spend every single day up until the election talking about greed and income inequality in order to blame both for the stagnant economy.

The hope was that by repeating this message incessantly, enough voters could be convinced that Wall Street, and by extension, evil Republicans, were to blame for our chronic unemployment, record deficits, and stillborn economic growth. President Obama who?"

.....what??