There are problems in the US that may eventually make the US more likely to fall into a revolution, but I doubt that the type of wealth inequality we have today is high on the list.

We have had a few riots in some of the larger cities. Poverty and lack of opportunity are definite contributors to these riots. However, these localized riots never seem to spread, even though we have the income disparities you mentioned. At least for now, I don't think we can expect a "French Revolution" type event to occur, even though there are quite a few millionaires and billionaires living within a few dozen miles of the poorest people.

none of what you said makes any point showing why gun control shouldn't be discussed or implemented. and i specifically didn't say "a collection of gun laws/regulations". i said "a collection of laws/regulations/policies". there is a plethora of policies or lack thereof that are talked about often to deflect from the gun debate after [yet another] mass shooting but it's always lip service. the main deflection de jour is "mental health" but very little if anything is done about that. and the problem stems from way beyond guns and mental health. minimum wage laws, health care, education, income disparity/poverty, mental health care, gun laws, etc. all play big roles in an event like this. guns are obviously the first issue that needs to be looked at but because of the second amendment, there is never a real conversation about it. it's just shut down. all without even validating the justification for the second amendment to begin with. it's just presumed to be an axiom.

but even accepting that it is, move on to the next issue and it's the same thing: obstruction of any conversation or modernization. "oh we can't do that 'cause it costs money". well, all the data shows not doing it (investing in education, health care, poverty, etc) is many times more expensive than investing in it. across the board.

so now your whole country just sits there feeling bad for itself, wallowing in how fucked your social structures are, and passing the buck from one issue to the next until the news cycle forgets about one specific event effected by all these things and moves on to the next event effected by all these things but is aesthetically different and the whole process starts over again. meanwhile complaining about ineffective your political system is yet consistently voting in low numbers for the entrenched or the psychotic. certainly never for the thoughtful or nuanced. [i'm being hyperbolic here, but your politicians and voting record as a poplulation are fucking terrifying if not useless]



point being: watching this happen time and time and time again: the tragedy, the grief, the looking for answers, refusing to see the answers that are plain as day from the outside, pointing to the closest issue you aren't directly effected by, and finally forgetting the whole thing and/or accepting it as normal is really, truly sad and tragic.

Shocking that one of the leading mouthpieces and corporate apologists for the diseased form of capitalism that is capsizing the former republic of the United States of America would be predicting that 'market forces' will maintain an environment where CEOs such as Dan Price, who are confused as to which side of the class war they are on, will be strongly discouraged from closing the historical chasm of income disparity with their workers via a complex and myriad assortment of carefully implemented internal structures, that have been embedded over several decades starting with Reagan, and will serve to doom any business to failure for not prizing profit, and the unequal distribution of profit, over all other considerations such as income parity.

The most interesting aspect of this experiment isn't whether it succeeds or fails in the long run but rather that it will someday be used as a prime example by people like Chris Hedges who argue that the form of crony capitalism plaguing the West cannot and should not be reformed but rather destroyed and replaced with a system that doesn't have as its main aim the impoverishment of workers for the sole benefit of an oligarchical aristocratic elite.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'dow jones index, G20, tim geithner, declining real wages, income disparity' to 'dow jones index, G20, tim geithner, declining real wages, income disparity, colbert' - edited by Grimm

Yeah, everyone is poor except a few rulers and their cronies, so there is "less income inequality."

How do you read that map you sent?

China is highly regulated, yet there is a lot of inequality, having the second largest number of billionaires, and millions of dirt-poor people. Does this map equate to percentages?

North Korea, on the other hand, is as highly regulated as it gets, yet they have very few billionaires, so, in this case yes, most people are equally poor, and close to starving (or are otherwise dead).

My initial post wasn't clear, in that, rather than seeking "equality," a higher standard of living seems preferable.

(Is this about envy or about having food on the table?)

Socialism promotes equality: "it's only virtue is equal misery for all" (with the exception of the rulers, of course)

Saudi Arabia is quite regulated, you can't buy alcohol and women must wear veils, yet the income disparities between the sheiks and the average workers is quite considerable.

Perhaps you'd like to elaborate and explain that unreadable map to me, so I can comment.

Edit: Oh, I see: According to this CIA map, there is apparently more "inequality" in the U.S. than there is in India. And a lot more in South Africa (but I didn't know South Africa was a land of no regulations, whatever that means). And Greece apparently has considerably lower inequality (so what are they all complaining about?!) And supposedly there is no data about communist countries like Cuba and places like Saudi Arabia (why is that?). Mongolia and Canada have about the same level of inequality. I'm still trying to decipher the purpose that this map serves...

>> ^frosty:

>> ^VoodooV:
If incomes were proportional, I might agree, but they're not. The ratio of the highest pay to the lowest pay in the 20s was about 30 to 1 If I recall, but now it's 300 to 1. I could be wrong, but I think I've heard some report that might say it was 400 to 1 20 percent of a poor person's income is felt FAR more profoundly than 20 percent of a wealthy person's income. Even though it's the same percentage, it hurts the poor person WAY more.
And yes, that is part of the argument. A wealthy person tends to just sit on their money and not put it into the economy. and so a higher percentage just simply doesn't hurt them the way it would hurt the lower/middle class.
If incomes were more proportional, a flat tax might work, but they're simply not so a flat tax doesn't work. That's part of the problem, the huge income disparity.

You make a fair argument, but I don't think you addressed my original question because we are assuming two different income tax structure paradigms. Your paradigm is one which attempts to equalize the pain inflicted on those taxed, whereas mine attempts to tax based on the value of the services rendered by the government to the taxed person. With your model, you're right, a progressive system is going to be the way to go. But I will argue that under such a system the rich are paying more than the government is giving them in return, and the poor are paying less. In essence, wealth is redistributed. Whether that is okay or just is another argument entirely.


Are you arguing that the government should issue you an itemized bill for all the services you used? because that would be a logistical nightmare and would cost even more taxpayer dollars.

Taxes aren't perfect, they never will be, unless you want to strictly regulate who gets paid what and introduce some sort of tracking system for who uses what gov't service. Besides, a lot of these services benefit everyone, either directly or indirectly. As a non-business owning citizen, I may not require an interstate system and a well maintained set of roads to ship my products on. But it benefits me all the same. I get to use it for recreation and traveling, and I use it to travel to my job.

Quite frankly, I did answer your question, but now it seems you're changing your question.

Strictly speaking, I would agree that every citizen should be taxed, even the poor who would normally be exempt, Every little bit helps, but I think what happens is that the government looks at the cost of what it takes to enforce that 47 percent to pay their tax vs what they actually give in return because they're so poor and it probably just isn't cost effective. That's my guess anyway. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the poor aren't jumping up and down and saying "nyah nyah, I don't have to pay taxes and you do" They have other problems...like the fact that they're poor.

It's another situation where the solution is worse than the problem. One argument I hear from my conservative friends is that they want drug testing for welfare recipients. Sounds great right? all things being equal It's an argument that I might even support. But the reality is, drug tests aren't cheap. They cost a fuckton of money. Compare that to the money actually lost and in the end, it just costs us even more money just so we can pat ourselves on the back and say see! our money isn't going to make people high. Oh wait, why are my taxes higher?

Closing corporate loopholes is one of the few things I've heard both the left and right agree upon. Problem is, it won't happen because behind each and every one of those loopholes is a business who benefits from it and some of those businesses lean left, and some of those businesses lean right and NEITHER want their particular loopholes closed. That's why you'll always see people say they're for it, but are never specific on which ones.

Gov't isn't perfect, but if you've got a problem with it. vote. or else leave, or just STFU

We treat the office of the president as if one person can solve our problems..they can't. The two party system is a failure and only divides our country.

>> ^VoodooV:
If incomes were proportional, I might agree, but they're not. The ratio of the highest pay to the lowest pay in the 20s was about 30 to 1 If I recall, but now it's 300 to 1. I could be wrong, but I think I've heard some report that might say it was 400 to 1 20 percent of a poor person's income is felt FAR more profoundly than 20 percent of a wealthy person's income. Even though it's the same percentage, it hurts the poor person WAY more.
And yes, that is part of the argument. A wealthy person tends to just sit on their money and not put it into the economy. and so a higher percentage just simply doesn't hurt them the way it would hurt the lower/middle class.
If incomes were more proportional, a flat tax might work, but they're simply not so a flat tax doesn't work. That's part of the problem, the huge income disparity.


You make a fair argument, but I don't think you addressed my original question because we are assuming two different income tax structure paradigms. Your paradigm is one which attempts to equalize the pain inflicted on those taxed, whereas mine attempts to tax based on the value of the services rendered by the government to the taxed person. With your model, you're right, a progressive system is going to be the way to go. But I will argue that under such a system the rich are paying more than the government is giving them in return, and the poor are paying less. In essence, wealth is redistributed. Whether that is okay or just is another argument entirely.

>> ^frosty:

>> ^VoodooV:
progressive tax is the only actual fair tax since the wealthy have much more need of gov't services than the poor ever will.

But do you not think the benefit of the government's services to a person is in proportion to their income?


If incomes were proportional, I might agree, but they're not. The ratio of the highest pay to the lowest pay in the 20s was about 30 to 1 If I recall, but now it's 300 to 1. I could be wrong, but I think I've heard some report that might say it was 400 to 1 20 percent of a poor person's income is felt FAR more profoundly than 20 percent of a wealthy person's income. Even though it's the same percentage, it hurts the poor person WAY more.

And yes, that is part of the argument. A wealthy person tends to just sit on their money and not put it into the economy. and so a higher percentage just simply doesn't hurt them the way it would hurt the lower/middle class.

If incomes were more proportional, a flat tax might work, but they're simply not so a flat tax doesn't work. That's part of the problem, the huge income disparity.

I'm not denying the existence of misogyny, but I do wonder why, if men are paid more then women, anyone would hire a man? Why not hire a woman in a man's place, pay them 80 cents on the dollar, and make a killing?

I don't understand what you mean by accusing someone of misandry as a form of misogyny. You'll have to explain that to me.

Personally, I found Warren Farrell's book, Why Men Earn More to be fairly illuminating with regards to these issues.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Trancecoach:
Not all of the studies and census statistics are as clear cut as Rachel makes it seem in this clip. For one thing, statistically speaking, more men's "value" or "worth" is based on their income, and are therefore willing (or are socially coerced) to work in particular kinds of jobs that women are not (such as physically riskier jobs, longer commutes, more frequent travel, longer hours, for example), for a greater number hours per week and/or days per week, and/or more years over the course of their lives than women. By contrast, women's worth or value is based less on their income and are therefore more willing (or socially allowed) to work in jobs that have a greater range of flexibility in terms of experience, time, and physical impact.
I'm not seeing any data. In any case, we're talking about different pay for equal work. We're not talking about average male salary vs. average female salary in aggregate, we're talking about men and women with the same position, same education,working the same hours, producing equivalent work, under the same working conditions...and they're being paid less.
>> ^Trancecoach:

The question we should be asking is what is lost by the income disparity? If the society is complicit in a gender bias as evidenced by an income disparity, it is just as complicit in the social pressures that are imposed on what is valued on the basis of gender and why.
The confrontation with misandry is a third rail, politically speaking, but, the myth of male power only serves to further propagate both the misogyny and the misandry that are both rampant throughout the society.
A fair point, but we're not talking about the "myth of male power", we're saying "misogyny exists, and we have data that proves it, but Republicans say it's a fairytale."
From where I sit, the a big part of misogyny is the rank dismissal of all claims that misogyny is real, or failing that, that misogyny is bad. To accuse someone, even lightheartedly, of engaging in misandry by presenting hard data saying "misogyny exists, and is widespread", is itself misogyny.
Just like the whole bit where Republicans accuse people of being racist against white people for pointing out that white people discriminate against black people, and that by talking about it we're just perpetuating the problem we're trying to solve...

>> ^Trancecoach:

Not all of the studies and census statistics are as clear cut as Rachel makes it seem in this clip. For one thing, statistically speaking, more men's "value" or "worth" is based on their income, and are therefore willing (or are socially coerced) to work in particular kinds of jobs that women are not (such as physically riskier jobs, longer commutes, more frequent travel, longer hours, for example), for a greater number hours per week and/or days per week, and/or more years over the course of their lives than women. By contrast, women's worth or value is based less on their income and are therefore more willing (or socially allowed) to work in jobs that have a greater range of flexibility in terms of experience, time, and physical impact.

I'm not seeing any data. In any case, we're talking about different pay for equal work. We're not talking about average male salary vs. average female salary in aggregate, we're talking about men and women with the same position, same education,working the same hours, producing equivalent work, under the same working conditions...and they're being paid less.

>> ^Trancecoach:


The question we should be asking is what is lost by the income disparity? If the society is complicit in a gender bias as evidenced by an income disparity, it is just as complicit in the social pressures that are imposed on what is valued on the basis of gender and why.
The confrontation with misandry is a third rail, politically speaking, but, the myth of male power only serves to further propagate both the misogyny and the misandry that are both rampant throughout the society.

A fair point, but we're not talking about the "myth of male power", we're saying "misogyny exists, and we have data that proves it, but Republicans say it's a fairytale."

From where I sit, the a big part of misogyny is the rank dismissal of all claims that misogyny is real, or failing that, that misogyny is bad. To accuse someone, even lightheartedly, of engaging in misandry by presenting hard data saying "misogyny exists, and is widespread", is itself misogyny.

Just like the whole bit where Republicans accuse people of being racist against white people for pointing out that white people discriminate against black people, and that by talking about it we're just perpetuating the problem we're trying to solve...

Not all of the studies and census statistics are as clear cut as Rachel makes it seem in this clip. For one thing, statistically speaking, more men are willing (or are socially coerced) to work in particular kinds of jobs that women are not (such as physically riskier jobs, longer commutes, more frequent travel, longer hours, for example) than are women. This is likely due to the the implicit societal norms which consider men's "value" or "worth" as being based on their income. By contrast, women's worth or value is based less on their income and they are therefore more willing (or socially allowed) to work in jobs that have a greater range of flexibility in terms of experience, time, and physical impact.

The question we should be asking is what is lost by the income disparity? If the society is complicit in a gender bias as evidenced by an income disparity, it is just as complicit in the social pressures that are imposed on what is valued on the basis of gender and why.

The confrontation with misandry is a third rail, politically speaking, but, the myth of male power only serves to further propagate both the misogyny and the misandry that are both rampant throughout the society.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Trancecoach:
Men also have more expenses, more liability in divorces, more financial responsibilities, less free time, and more time away from home.

Kinda weird to see you taking up the contrary side of the argument. Having "expenses" and "financial responsibilities" are functions of lifestyle choices, not something intrinsic to your gender. Likewise, having less free time or more time traveling are functions of your job, not your gender. Having more liability in divorces is a result of the man having the higher income, not because men are being discriminated against as a group.
In any case, none of that justifies paying a women less than a man for an equivalent quantity & quality of work, which studies show is what's happening.

Downvoting because a) no one has ever suggested that we appropriate all of Exxon's money and put it towards paying off the debt and b) he is conflating the issues of debt and vast income disparity. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Not to mention highly dishonest.

>> ^Morganth:

Downvoting this because the facts don't line up with the narrative you want to hear?>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
This is stupid. OWS and the debt are two separate issues. Shame on for trying to conflate the two, Bill Whittle (whoever you are).

I don't disagree that the OWS movement isn't going to do a whole lot immediately as far as policy and correcting the disparity. I hung out at an OWS function in my town today and wrote what i think it's impact could/should/might/would love to see it be in a sift talk post. go read it if you're interested. i'm not whoring, i just would love to have the discussion, but im not going to have it two places. >> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Sarzy:
I don't know -- I think their heart is in the right place, but I guess I just question the efficacy of what the OWS people are doing on a practical level. Even if they somehow succeed in getting tighter regulations on Wall Street, is that really going to do much to to fix the whole 99 vs 1 percent income disparity? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that here in Canada, we don't have the same level of unchecked financial shenanigans as you do over there, which is why we weren't hit quite as hard by the recent downturn. But our income disparity is still pretty much as bad as what it is in the States. I don't think anything short of a massive political and cultural overhaul will fix that disparity to any meaningful degree, and obviously that's not going to happen.
But maybe I have OWS all wrong -- I'll admit that I'm not the most informed guy ever.

Oh, I have the same doubts about how well this will work, but up until now the only public "protest" we've seen has been a bunch of grumpy old men demonstrating against having a Democrat in the White House having a black man in the Oval office government regulation of banks, taxes being too high on the top 1%, and the possibility that we might get some sort of national health care overhaul.
In other words, all the people getting mad and going out on the streets lately have been pro-disparity people.
At least now we have people protesting against the right problem. And these people aren't just protesting for a single day and going home, they're bringing their sleeping bags and parking there for the duration. That seems to me like a crucial first step towards getting anything fixed.
Maybe I'm naive to be inspired by it, but it's the first reason I've had in a while to feel hopeful about the future.

>> ^Sarzy:

I don't know -- I think their heart is in the right place, but I guess I just question the efficacy of what the OWS people are doing on a practical level. Even if they somehow succeed in getting tighter regulations on Wall Street, is that really going to do much to to fix the whole 99 vs 1 percent income disparity? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that here in Canada, we don't have the same level of unchecked financial shenanigans as you do over there, which is why we weren't hit quite as hard by the recent downturn. But our income disparity is still pretty much as bad as what it is in the States. I don't think anything short of a massive political and cultural overhaul will fix that disparity to any meaningful degree, and obviously that's not going to happen.
But maybe I have OWS all wrong -- I'll admit that I'm not the most informed guy ever.


Oh, I have the same doubts about how well this will work, but up until now the only public "protest" we've seen has been a bunch of grumpy old men demonstrating against having a Democrat in the White House having a black man in the Oval office government regulation of banks, taxes being too high on the top 1%, and the possibility that we might get some sort of national health care overhaul.

In other words, all the people getting mad and going out on the streets lately have been pro-disparity people.

At least now we have people protesting against the right problem. And these people aren't just protesting for a single day and going home, they're bringing their sleeping bags and parking there for the duration. That seems to me like a crucial first step towards getting anything fixed.

Maybe I'm naive to be inspired by it, but it's the first reason I've had in a while to feel hopeful about the future.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Sarzy:
Oh okay, I see. I don't know though -- MSNBC probably should have given some coverage to OWS that night, but Steve Jobs' death is pretty darn important, isn't it? I mean, 10 years from now, people are definitely going to remember Steve Jobs. I don't know if you can say the same about OWS, which essentially strikes me as the left's answer to the tea party.

Sure, Steve Jobs' death is a worthwhile news story, but it's not like it was some unfolding event with minute-to-minute updates either. A single segment, possibly in each show would've been more than sufficient. If they really felt the need to pay a big tribute, come back in a couple weeks with a big 60 minute tribute show or something.
Oh, and yes, people will remember Steve Jobs's life 10 years from now, but most people will probably need to look up the date of his death 10 years from now.
And who knows how people will remember these protests. Maybe they'll just be a footnote in the history of the Lesser Depression. Or maybe it'll be a big factor in the 2012 election. Or maybe it'll be the beginning of some major shift in American politics. It'll almost certainly be the first two, and it might just be the third.
That's why I'm annoyed MSNBC blotted it out that night, and was slow to start covering it. They're giving it lots of coverage now, so I'm somewhat less ticked than I was when I originally put up this post, but still, it's the first real distinction I've seen between corporate MSNBC, and mostly independent Current in terms of their coverage.


I don't know -- I think their heart is in the right place, but I guess I just question the efficacy of what the OWS people are doing on a practical level. Even if they somehow succeed in getting tighter regulations on Wall Street, is that really going to do much to to fix the whole 99 vs 1 percent income disparity? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that here in Canada, we don't have the same level of unchecked financial shenanigans as you do over there, which is why we weren't hit quite as hard by the recent downturn. But our income disparity is still pretty much as bad as what it is in the States. I don't think anything short of a massive political and cultural overhaul will fix that disparity to any meaningful degree, and obviously that's not going to happen.

But maybe I have OWS all wrong -- I'll admit that I'm not the most informed guy ever.