*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Thursday, September 22nd, 2011 2:11pm PDT - promote requested by original submitter dystopianfuturetoday.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Boise_Lib.

Could have done without them interviewing the most moronic guy first.

*backup=[...snipped...]

Added alternate embed code for this video - backup requested by legacy0100.

Haha! Pareto's principle strikes again!!!

*quality
Upvoted without thinking @ 0:34.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by JiggaJonson.

Work hard, play by the rules, and the socialist government will give the same rewards to those who didn't do shit to earn them.

Not a single one of these "Nobel" economists (all who failed to predict the housing crash) explains why a concentration of wealth is bad, and if it's bad for the sake of being bad, then the federal mafia is an even greater villain than the evil rich.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Work hard, play by the rules, and the socialist government will give the same rewards to those who didn't do shit to earn them.
Not a single one of these "Nobel" economists (all who failed to predict the housing crash) explains why a concentration of wealth is bad, and if it's bad for the sake of being bad, then the federal mafia is an even greater villain than the evil rich.


Someones swallowed the Kool-aid. Try looking at history.....thats your answer to why its bad. People eventually get mad

>> ^quantumushroom:

Work hard, play by the rules, and the socialist government will give the same rewards to those who didn't do shit to earn them.
Not a single one of these "Nobel" economists (all who failed to predict the housing crash) explains why a concentration of wealth is bad, and if it's bad for the sake of being bad, then the federal mafia is an even greater villain than the evil rich.


Costs upwards of $50k to keep people in jail for a year. Pretty much everyone in jail is from a poor (and therefore poorly educated) background.

US now has 2 million incarcerated, another 5-6 million having to be watched by parole officers etc. And rising. Carry on as you are QM, and you and the rest of the hard working white middle class will all HAVE to be working in the jails in 20 years, that will be the ENTIRE US economy. (Apart from the latest Wars On .., natch).

Still think there's nothing to fix?

QM, I swear, if I didn't know any better I'd say you are just a trolling videosift bot!

>> ^quantumushroom:

Work hard, play by the rules, and the socialist government will give the same rewards to those who didn't do shit to earn them.
Not a single one of these "Nobel" economists (all who failed to predict the housing crash) explains why a concentration of wealth is bad, and if it's bad for the sake of being bad, then the federal mafia is an even greater villain than the evil rich.

Although this segment might be going down the right path, $150,000/year does not make you rich. It's barely upper middle class. Barely. They should have reported a few miles north (Potomac) or west (Great Falls) of Georgetown where the average home price is comfortably around $2.7M

>> ^quantumushroom:

Not a single one of these "Nobel" economists explains why a concentration of wealth is bad..


How is it that you have no concept of fairness?

How can you NOT understand that if a few people horde all the money.. there's no money to go around?

Which means all the hardworking people you pretend to support.. can't get any money to feed their families! [Cause it's all sitting in private account offshore]

The bailouts gave Billions to people who already make Millions a year..

Were those bailouts for banks and taxpayer subsidies for Exxon Mobile [who pays no taxes] helpful to the economy? NO! cause they're hording all the money.


Uuuuugh I wish I could make you poor as fuck so you'd get a dose of reality.


You're too dumb to understand that an economy is an agreement.
People who cheat the rest of us out of our money by speculation and financial games and legal loopholes are breaking that agreement.

You clearly have no integrity cause you defend & support those cheaters every chance you get.
[And clearly no brains to realize you aren't benefited by it]

>> ^MonkeySpank:

Although this segment might be going down the right path, $150,000/year does not make you rich. It's barely upper middle class. Barely. They should have reported a few miles north (Potomac) or west (Great Falls) of Georgetown where the average home price is comfortably around $2.7M


I live in Nebraska where the cost of living is amongst the lowest in the US so that's always blown me away how someone can make over 100K and still not be incredibly well off since it costs so much to live where they live.

IMO, it's almost to the point where it doesn't matter how much you make, it just matters where you live. To me it almost seems like that's a bigger problem...why can't the cost of living be more level regardless of where you live. Obviously there are going to be some exceptions, but if we could even out the disparity in the cost of living in where you live, wouldn't that make it easier to determine how progressive the tax should be?

Very good point VoodooV. I agree 100%.

>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^MonkeySpank:
Although this segment might be going down the right path, $150,000/year does not make you rich. It's barely upper middle class. Barely. They should have reported a few miles north (Potomac) or west (Great Falls) of Georgetown where the average home price is comfortably around $2.7M

I live in Nebraska where the cost of living is amongst the lowest in the US so that's always blown me away how someone can make over 100K and still not be incredibly well off since it costs so much to live where they live.
IMO, it's almost to the point where it doesn't matter how much you make, it just matters where you live. To me it almost seems like that's a bigger problem...why can't the cost of living be more level regardless of where you live. Obviously there are going to be some exceptions, but if we could even out the disparity in the cost of living in where you live, wouldn't that make it easier to determine how progressive the tax should be?

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

$150k a year is upper class to me, especially if it's an individual's income. I think the video meant to say it's household income.

Because the $30,000 a year for the black area would be pretty decent for an individual. It sucks for a household though.

Also a recent CNN article said that white households have ten times net worth than black households.

I have two degrees in biology and chemistry and my individual, annual salary out of college was $35k, pretty rough in metro-Virginia where rent is unreasonable. Frugal spending (but short-term investments ) left small margins and essentially no buffer; not a comfortable life by any means.

Then again, that's just me and what do I know?

I find it interesting that most of the people opposed to more progressive taxation wouldn't be hurt by it themselves - I actually think there's more support for taxing rich people among rich people than there is among poor people (especially poor people who think they're middle class).

Me? I think every American should pay less taxes. And they could, easily, just by cutting military spending (and redirecting some of that to job creation - ideally a new energy program). BTW, I'm Canadian.

I find it interesting that most people are opposed to taxes, but if you take a closer look at what life is like in Denmark, France, Norway, Germany, Holland, you should realize that there's actually a beneficial way of spending taxes.

What does not benefit the hive, does not benefit the bee.

Anyone that talks about "income inequality" automatically gets labelled an idiot in my mind, as does anyone who says the phrase "The rich get richer, the poor get poorer."

In reality, the rich and poor have all been doing better since the 1960s, even after adjusting for inflation.

The important thing to look at is median household income, divided by income quintile.

Look at this graph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg

The important thing to look at is median household income, divided by income quintile.


Obviously it's good that incomes are up across the board, but "rich" and "poor" aren't always, or even usually, used as absolute terms. Usually they're used as relative terms, and certainly relative wealth can have a profound effect on life satisfaction and social relationships. As such, it's perfectly possible to think of the "poor getting poorer" if their relative income isn't growing as fast as others' incomes.

Certainly it's a better situation than if their incomes were going down in absolute terms, but the gap in income can still have social consequences.

In terms of economics and happiness, I think we can show that the marginal happiness benefit of a dollar decreases with overall wealth. As such, we get higher happiness through progressive taxation, and surely that's got some value in terms of a societal target. Obviously there are other forces that come into play (and capitalism in general is the best system we've found), but I think income inequality is at least something valid to be concerned about.

But I suppose that marks me as an idiot to Shaka, and I look forward to another downvote from peroxide (though I don't have any idea what he disagrees with me on).

Tax is not the point here. Sure taxing the rich assumes redistribution - but we all know any money that goes into the govt at this point vaporizes into national debt. The poor won't see a cent.

It's ambulance at the bottom of the cliff anyway - The point is the graph.

The hole in the system is:

- Consumers can control the market by which products / services they purchase
- But they can't control how profits are distributed internally. The ceo's - all on each other's boards - reward each other with a fatter and fatter cut of the pie.

Outside corporations the market is a democracy. But INSIDE corporations the class structure is a clear oligarchy with no checks or balances and a totally powerless workforce.

The inequality of distribution of wealth has to be fixed INSIDE the corporations remuneration for effort. It cannot be fixed by funneling money back through the government machinery.

@raverman: "The inequality of distribution of wealth has to be fixed INSIDE the corporations remuneration for effort."

If I found a corporation, and never go public, why should you have any right to the profits of the corporation, other than the normal payment of taxes?

What, will you forcefully nationalize my corporation and take it away from me, to give it to the workers? There's a name for that.

@jmzero: "As such, it's perfectly possible to think of the "poor getting poorer" if their relative income isn't growing as fast as others' incomes... the gap in income can still have social consequences."

How? If all the poor suddenly earned $60k a year in constant dollars and could afford all the health care, food, and whatever else they wanted, do you think there's going to be "social consequences" because Warren Buffet and his friends made an extra billion that year?

No, there wouldn't be.

You have to both look at the percentage of the pie each income quintile is taking, but also the size of the pie. Economics is not a zero-sum game, which is a mistake most of the people make when talking about income inequality.

@ShakaUVM: "How? If all the poor suddenly earned $60k a year in constant dollars and could afford all the health care, food, and whatever else they wanted, do you think there's going to be "social consequences" because Warren Buffet and his friends made an extra billion that year? No, there wouldn't be."

Most people won't get mad if one person is richer than them and can have golden toilets and they have "whatever else they want" (which is ridiculous - we're imagining a place where people have all they want?). Though, to be fair, some will. Some people will be (and are) mad that someone is making a billion dollars, especially if they don't do much work.

More generally, imagine the opposite ridiculous analogy. Imagine a situation where nobody can afford food. Later, 40% of the population (say, ones with blue eyes) can afford food while everyone else gets only a modest increase in income. Do you think the green eyes are going to be happy because, oh well, they're making as much as they did before? Of course not. They're going to see themselves as getting poorer while the blue eyes are getting richer, and they're going to be mad and want to steal food.

There's factors involved in how this plays out - very important ones are:

1. How significant are the amenities one class gets that the other doesn't (obviously food, housing, electricity are going to make more of a pinch than "rich people drive nicer cars").
2. Does the division of wealth feel arbitrary and permanent? Do people feel like they might one day move into the richer class? Do they feel the rich have "earned" their position?
3. How does the population break down? Is there small percentages of outliers, or is there a clear division between haves and have-nots?

So yeah, it's not simple (and wouldn't happen in magic world where people have everything they want and where prices for goods didn't change relative to each other), but it's not a non-existent problem. I don't think the US is close to serious social problems, but with a little prodding it could be and "revolution" isn't the first step. There's also "tipping points" that may come up. For example, if poor people begin to generally feel like a "good education" (the kind that gets a job, which at times raises in price much faster than CPI) is only possible for rich people, that's going to be bad. Right now there's a sense that anyone can work hard and progress - if that feeling evaporates you're going to get more labor unrest and support for radical populist politicians.

Don't think that could happen? Look at history.

@jmzero: "Imagine a situation where nobody can afford food"

Precisely. The absolute amount of wealth/resources/whatever is much more important than the percentages involved. We're currently living in a society that has more income inequality than ever before, and yet lower hunger than ever before - from what I heard, America isn't tracking death by starvation any more since it so rarely happens - 120 deaths in 2004. (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_die_from_starvation_each_year_in_America) This is absolutely amazing in a country with 300 million souls in it, and unprecedented in human history.

>>"Most people won't get mad if one person is richer than them and can have golden toilets and they have "whatever else they want" (which is ridiculous - we're imagining a place where people have all they want?)"

I meant that somewhat flippantly, and somewhat seriously. There's a certain point after which incremental gains in money does not buy any more happiness, and the point is around $60k-$75k. This the point where you can afford food, a house, a car, health care, take the occasional vacation, and so forth. I'm not saying they're buying golden toilets, but the point is, people that achieve that relatively modest level of wealth no longer have to worry about all the really shitty parts about being poor (and I've been there - it sucks) and can instead be happy or sad based on whatever else in life is going to make them happy or sad.

If our poor hit this level of affluence, then there won't be a single person, outside of the anarcho-communists that seem so popular on forums like these, advocating for the overthrow of the social order.

Hell, look at China as an example of how rising affluence lets people overlook (actual, real) problems with their society, instead of pretend problems like income inequality.

@ShakaUVM: "There's a certain point after which incremental gains in money does not buy any more happiness, and the point is around $60k-$75k."

I agree there - certainly income inequality is a much smaller pain when the "low end" is higher. Overall I think our positions are probably closer than I thought they were - certainly I'd grant that income inequality is being overhyped as a current problem (in the US).

I do think, though, that the economy and general strategy for wealth distribution will have to change in the next 30-50 years. I think there's a decent chance we'll see high, stable unemployment as humans are replaced in manufacturing, manual labor, and repetitive knowledge and service industries (optometrists, etc..). Now certainly there's growing job sectors (elder care, etc..) that will absorb many of these displaced workers, but eventually if unemployment stays very high (25 or 30%) I think Western countries will need a new plan (or else we'll end up with a significant divide that will cause problems).

@ShakaUVM No the Govt has no right to take your corporation or profits.

It's a question for our socienty: Is greed ethically wrong? Is fairness and justice socially important? Or does the treatment of other human beings mean nothing. Ownership and property is everything.

If yes, then the law should protect workers to ensure a fair % of profit is always returned to them
A fair days work should receive a fair days pay.

If no, then you owe your workers nothing. Morally or socially. You can make $1 Billion dollars and leave them struggling at the poverty line. They effectively become slaves as they have no resources, time, energy, effort to seek opportunity.

You have no ethical responsibility toward those who have lifted you on their shoulders to success.

@raverman: "You have no ethical responsibility toward those who have lifted you on their shoulders to success."

You have an ethical responsibility to pay them at whatever rate they are contracted to pay.

A friend of mine owns about $10M worth of properties, which he manages himself. He drives around town, collecting rents, dealing with angry tenants, and so forth. Suppose he hires someone at $20/hour to do that for him, or maybe $40k/year.

Is that fair? If he or she eventually decides that she's "doing all the work" that runs his $10M empire, does she have the right to take some of his capital away from him? Why should she "deserve" more, especially since the work is fairly low level, and he's paying her at a rate well above the minimum wage?

@ShakaUVM The example your' arguing isn't a parallel of the situation that is the problem.

A two person operation - "whos doing all the work" doesnt equate to multi-natonal conglomerates paying millions and millions to senior executives and board members.

And being ethically responsible to pay the contracted rate is only fair if you think the lowest worker is in an equal position to negotiate that contract. Legal control of pay ratios would even that negotiation out.

If a company makes 100 million the workforce gets minimum wage or less.
If they make 10 billion, the workforce gets minimum wage or less.
The extra ALWAYS goes to the seniors. They don't pay the workers more, or hire more people: they pay themselves...

Fundamentally they harm society and harm the economy because they can't / don't spend the money as thousands of employees might.

@raverman, Ok, so you want to institute a pay ratio. What, 10/1? 100/1?

So my friend, who might take in $1M or more from his properties (he's not a hypothetical creation by the way) would have to pay a minimum of, what, $100,000 to a person to do office work for him? How does that make any sense?

How would you enforce this on the multinationals who have moved most of their labor overseas anyway, where such laws wouldn't be enforced?