The way forward in our country causing income inequality

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
25,129
31,274
1,743
oklahoma city
I don't know what "income inequality" is "just about", other than Marxism. It is about pitting one group of society against another... that's it. It's a political issue designed to make the politicians hero's to the "under privileged" by robbing from the rich who clearly do not deserve to have that much.

Almost all poverty (in the US) is because of decisions. Personal decisions. If a rich man goes broke, he'll find a way to make money again. If you give money to a poor person, almost all of the time they will be poor once again.

It has nothing to do really, with "income". There are far too many examples of athletes or rock/movie starts having riches heaped upon them, only to squander it all away and die poor.

Blaming the rich is nothing but a political ploy to get votes from people that want free stuff (Marxism)

If young people do not want to grow up to be poor in America, there are 3 simple steps that almost always lead to more success.

1) Finish high school.
2) Don't have a kid before age 20.
3) Get married first.
You want to turn it into something it isn't. It is merely a measure. It is not "blame." I have not made a single "blame" statement except to propose that the government may be causing this change. The rich do not need embarrassing lapdogs like yourself to defend them from an attack that is not happening. For the umpteenth time income inequality is not only about poverty. I'm not blaming the rich, hell, I am rich.

I have said it so many times but you just do not have the capacity to comprehend. People like you, and "marxists" on the left want to politicize it. Basically, what you are saying is that high blood pressure is from eating too much salt in your opinion. So, don't measure blood pressure, just assume you right on the cause, don't eat salt, and everything will be OK.

Your generalizations of the facts of poverty are so wildly off base that they are not even worth discussing. So, unless you can show some actual research showing "Almost all poverty is because of decisions" I'll take that as ignorance. It would be like an athletic 7' tall man telling me that only reason he is in the NBA and I'm not is because he practiced harder. The things you just stated are associated with less poverty. Taking that correlation and deciding that makes it cause of almost all poverty just shows that you lack the ability to truly analyze data.

I understand your opinion. You do not need to repeat it again. I cannot absolutely prove it to be wrong as I have not seen enough data (the point of my post). But, I think the probability is so low I would bet everything I own you are wrong. Unless you come up with something other than your right-wing talking points to counter something I am not even saying, I'm done responding to you.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
25,129
31,274
1,743
oklahoma city
Government makes bad decisions all the time. And there is no doubt too much corruption. But your video was potentially exposing corrupt government officials favoring a friend over another individual. Not an income inequality issue.

You have a lot of good ideas, but I think you missed on this one. But please continue to post Stossel videos, you will always capture my attention on those posts.
How would the government granting an income producing development to one individual and blocking an income producing development from another individual not be an example of income inequality?
Multiply that decision times thousands of other government decisions that previously broke one way or the other but now break primarily in one direction and that can a genesis for income inequality increasing.

Could you maybe just consider that you have been patterned to be so adverse to that term that you are arguing against what you want me to be saying instead of what I am saying? Fine, don't call it income inequality. But, the government favoring certain entities over other entities might be creating more gap between those that have and those that do not. It also might be preventing the increased success of certain individuals that might have been successful if the government had not favored others. How about that?
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
14,740
2,278
1,743
So Cal
You want to turn it into something it isn't. It is merely a measure. It is not "blame." I have not made a single "blame" statement except to propose that the government may be causing this change. The rich do not need embarrassing lapdogs like yourself to defend them from an attack that is not happening. For the umpteenth time income inequality is not only about poverty. I'm not blaming the rich, hell, I am rich.

I have said it so many times but you just do not have the capacity to comprehend. People like you, and "marxists" on the left want to politicize it. Basically, what you are saying is that high blood pressure is from eating too much salt in your opinion. So, don't measure blood pressure, just assume you right on the cause, don't eat salt, and everything will be OK.

Your generalizations of the facts of poverty are so wildly off base that they are not even worth discussing. So, unless you can show some actual research showing "Almost all poverty is because of decisions" I'll take that as ignorance. It would be like an athletic 7' tall man telling me that only reason he is in the NBA and I'm not is because he practiced harder. The things you just stated are associated with less poverty. Taking that correlation and deciding that makes it cause of almost all poverty just shows that you lack the ability to truly analyze data.

I understand your opinion. You do not need to repeat it again. I cannot absolutely prove it to be wrong as I have not seen enough data (the point of my post). But, I think the probability is so low I would bet everything I own you are wrong. Unless you come up with something other than your right-wing talking points to counter something I am not even saying, I'm done responding to you.
you don't understand anything and you don't care too... you just want to call me incapable and lack of ability, and your opinion is right because it's your opinion. You're simply another cyber bully. Period.

Those are not "my opinions", they are my representations of collective insight and research and philosophy.

It is difficult to have real discussions in this forum with folks like you turning every conversation into a personal attack and a demonetization of other's comments.

I would like to continue having a discussion, but not if every single one of your retorts consists of nothing more than rude admonishment of others. It's just not worth it.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
25,129
31,274
1,743
oklahoma city
you don't understand anything and you don't care too... you just want to call me incapable and lack of ability, and your opinion is right because it's your opinion. You're simply another cyber bully. Period.

Those are not "my opinions", they are my representations of collective insight and research and philosophy.

It is difficult to have real discussions in this forum with folks like you turning every conversation into a personal attack and a demonetization of other's comments.

I would like to continue having a discussion, but not if every single one of your retorts consists of nothing more than rude admonishment of others. It's just not worth it.
Hey, the guy who has been rude from the very first post telling me I'm wrong and personally attacking me by calling me a marxist finally got his widdle feelings hurt. You want to complain about rude and bullying? It is my thread start and look at your very first word in the thread before you complain about rude. Cyber bully. Ha, that is rich.

You have done nothing but antagonize this entire thread. You don't even read what the person wrote. When I throw you something that you could agree with you ignore it and just attack further. You have tried to change my words to something not what I said so you can respond with your normal far right gibberish.

And, yet, despite being on an overwhelmingly right wing board, somehow more people are agreeing with my posts than yours.

If you do not like my posts, don't respond in my threads. Coming into my thread calling me a bully after being an obstinant turd every single time you respond to me doesn't help anything. There is an easy fix to your bullying concerns. Stay away from my threads. The honest truth is unlike others like @cableok who I agree and/or disagree with, never have I been happy to read something from you. It is always the same. If you don't want real discussions with "folks like me" simply stop trying to have them all the time. You know, like your claim, it is all just decisions. Quit complaining about your own decision and just stop making it.
 
Oct 30, 2007
2,980
2,635
1,743
Income inequality is a good thing. Everyone's life is a culmination of a series of choices. Your income is determined by the skill set you acquire through education and hard work. People should be rewarded for making the right choices and working hard.

I do agree however with the overall premise that the government shouldn't pick and choose winners and losers. They should produce an even playing field where everyone has the same opportunities to thrive. They simply shouldn't push to create equality through legislation. Equal opportunity is a great thing, but forced equality isn't.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
25,129
31,274
1,743
oklahoma city
Income inequality is a good thing. Everyone's life is a culmination of a series of choices. Your income is determined by the skill set you acquire through education and hard work. People should be rewarded for making the right choices and working hard.

I do agree however with the overall premise that the government shouldn't pick and choose winners and losers. They should produce an even playing field where everyone has the same opportunities to thrive. They simply shouldn't push to create equality through legislation. Equal opportunity is a great thing, but forced equality isn't.
Exactly. I'm NOT trying to advocate for equalizing incomes. I know people that think that way and it is close to insane.
What I am saying is that income were inequal decades ago. Now, they are even more unequal. It is also more difficult to change income strata than it was. Why did all this change? Is the fact that it changed going to cause problems? Is the change due to normal business practice or is it government policy/intervention?
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
52,199
18,068
1,743
It is also more difficult to change income strata than it was.
I’ve heard this before and seems I’ve read that it isn’t actually true, I don’t know. Is there any documentation to support that?
 
Oct 30, 2007
2,980
2,635
1,743
Exactly. I'm NOT trying to advocate for equalizing incomes. I know people that think that way and it is close to insane.
What I am saying is that income were inequal decades ago. Now, they are even more unequal. It is also more difficult to change income strata than it was. Why did all this change? Is the fact that it changed going to cause problems? Is the change due to normal business practice or is it government policy/intervention?
Government policy / intervention probably has something to do with it, but I believe much of it boils down to simple supply and demand. If income levels are growing for upper level employees and staying stagnant for lower level employees, what does that tell you about the supply and demand within those two talent pools?

To further that point, I heard recently there are more unfilled jobs than unemployed adults in this country for the first time ever. But many of the unemployed don't possess the skill set necessary to fill these positions. Simply investing in education would allow most people to advance beyond where they are now.
 
Feb 11, 2007
4,018
1,866
1,743
Oklahoma City
Exactly. I'm NOT trying to advocate for equalizing incomes. I know people that think that way and it is close to insane.
What I am saying is that income were inequal decades ago. Now, they are even more unequal. It is also more difficult to change income strata than it was. Why did all this change? Is the fact that it changed going to cause problems? Is the change due to normal business practice or is it government policy/intervention?
I believe that it changed because by the increasing complexity and number of federal and state regulations.
Just to start an ordinary small business is extremely difficult because small business must comply with all the same regulations as massive corporations. This offers a tremendous advantage to big companies. Overhead compliance expenses for small companies takes up a far greater percentage of their revenue than those paid by large companies. The small guy is at a tremendous disadvantage.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
25,129
31,274
1,743
oklahoma city
I believe that it changed because by the increasing complexity and number of federal and state regulations.
Just to start an ordinary small business is extremely difficult because small business must comply with all the same regulations as massive corporations. This offers a tremendous advantage to big companies. Overhead compliance expenses for small companies takes up a far greater percentage of their revenue than those paid by large companies. The small guy is at a tremendous disadvantage.
Yep, that is exactly what I was thinking. But, I wish there was good evidence.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
25,129
31,274
1,743
oklahoma city
Government policy / intervention probably has something to do with it, but I believe much of it boils down to simple supply and demand. If income levels are growing for upper level employees and staying stagnant for lower level employees, what does that tell you about the supply and demand within those two talent pools?

To further that point, I heard recently there are more unfilled jobs than unemployed adults in this country for the first time ever. But many of the unemployed don't possess the skill set necessary to fill these positions. Simply investing in education would allow most people to advance beyond where they are now.
If there are unfilled jobs, that is the demand and incomes should rise (in fairness, I think they are somewhat). And, what is preventing unemployed people from obtaining the training required?
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
14,740
2,278
1,743
So Cal
Hey, the guy who has been rude from the very first post telling me I'm wrong and personally attacking me by calling me a marxist finally got his widdle feelings hurt. You want to complain about rude and bullying? It is my thread start and look at your very first word in the thread before you complain about rude. Cyber bully. Ha, that is rich.

You have done nothing but antagonize this entire thread. You don't even read what the person wrote. When I throw you something that you could agree with you ignore it and just attack further. You have tried to change my words to something not what I said so you can respond with your normal far right gibberish.

And, yet, despite being on an overwhelmingly right wing board, somehow more people are agreeing with my posts than yours.

If you do not like my posts, don't respond in my threads. Coming into my thread calling me a bully after being an obstinant turd every single time you respond to me doesn't help anything. There is an easy fix to your bullying concerns. Stay away from my threads. The honest truth is unlike others like @cableok who I agree and/or disagree with, never have I been happy to read something from you. It is always the same. If you don't want real discussions with "folks like me" simply stop trying to have them all the time. You know, like your claim, it is all just decisions. Quit complaining about your own decision and just stop making it.
Oh boy. I simply asked a question in my first post, and I said absolutely nothing about Marxism there either.

And I was not rude. I asked a question, and even posed an alternative. Huh simply means I do not understand the premise - that it doesn't make sense to me - sorry if it offended you.

In fact, I said nothing bad to you or towards you in my first 4 posts. You started the bully tactics and have kept it up in every post since.

And I don't think I called you a Marxist - I said income inequality is a Marxist concept. (although I may have slipped up later as your personal attacks continued)

If you don't welcome people discussing a topic, then why are you starting threads in the first place?

get a grip man - moving on.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
25,129
31,274
1,743
oklahoma city
If you don't welcome people discussing a topic, then why are you starting threads in the first place?

get a grip man - moving on.
See, you just read what you want to read instead of what is written. THAT is why I have no desire to discuss things with you. It isn't ever a discussion. All your response ever are is an attempt to one-up me.

I could not have made it any more clear that I do enjoy discussing with people that can have a discussion. I even gave an example to make it blatantly obvious. And, I'm sure it was, to all but you.

Moving on would be great.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
66,806
48,242
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
I haven't been following this thread terribly closely, but has the effects of technology on wage stagnation been discussed? It seems to me that much of the increase in productivity over the past 60 years has been secondary to dramatic increases in technology. If that's true then that explains the wage stagnation, companies put the money where it gains the most increases in productivity. And if that's the case, there's no solution to it, because companies are going to continue to put their money where they have the most gains.