US wealth inequality now as equally bad as Russia

[Michchamp]

of course, if you're a Republican, you'd say "equally good!"

link.

wow... Mother Jones managed to write an entire article on Russia without trying to blame Hillary's loss on Russian hackers.

 

[tinselwolverine]

So those commies have been ahead of us in inequality this whole time?

Shit.

And they haven't even had the advantage of having blacks to demean and oppress.

 

[Spartanmack]

wow, what a surprise - a mother jones article about how bad life is in the richest country in the world where the poor have homes, education, healthcare not to mention smart phones, internet and myriad other modern conveniences. It's not about how well the poor have it - someone has more and that's not fair.

 

[Michchamp]

wow, what a surprise - a mother jones article about how bad life is in the richest country in the world where the poor have homes, education, healthcare not to mention smart phones, internet and myriad other modern conveniences. It's not about how well the poor have it - someone has more and that's not fair.

the poor here have homes, education, and healthcare?

and smartphones! they have smartphones! if you have a smartphone, even if it's a piece of shit refurbished iphone 5c, all your complaints regarding inequality are invalid.

see also: Occupy Wall Street. some people in the crowd were photographed using iphones, therefore the subprime mortgage shitshow created by Wall Street didn't actually happen.

sidenote: all mainstream media in this country seems to be targeted at influencing a cranky, stupid, old white guy in Florida, who carries one of those old people phones, with a large print display so he can read it despite his poor eyesight (link - holy shit... they now make a "smart phone" version of the old people's phone. time to update the story for 2017)

sidenote 2: where will spartahack move when he retires, given that Florida will be either underwater or uninhabitable by then?

 

[Gulo Blue]

wow, what a surprise - a mother jones article about how bad life is in the richest country in the world where the poor have homes, education, healthcare not to mention smart phones, internet and myriad other modern conveniences. It's not about how well the poor have it - someone has more and that's not fair.

In what way? It just talks about wealth inequality. I would have to re-read it carefully to be sure, but I don't think there was a single opinion in the article. By saying this article says life is bad and unfair in America, you are implying that wealth inequality is bad and unfair.

 

[TheVictors]

Lol, 10 ...15yrs ago if you lost your job the first thing you'd do is cancel your superflous gadget mobile phone. Now if you go to some of the more impoverished places on Earth, the one and only possession many have is a mobile phone.

And Donny Jr - who doesn't get Net Neutrality - mocks those who support an open and free communication network.

 

[tomdalton22]

Lol, 10 ...15yrs ago if you lost your job the first thing you'd do is cancel your superflous gadget mobile phone. Now if you go to some of the more impoverished places on Earth, the one and only possession many have is a mobile phone.

And Donny Jr - who doesn't get Net Neutrality - mocks those who support an open and free communication network.

the money we pay for mostly "luxury" items is crazy. In my household we pay almost $600 per month for cable, a phone line, internet and cell phone service. It's really stupid if you think about it.

 

[TheVictors]

the money we pay for mostly "luxury" items is crazy. In my household we pay almost $600 per month for cable, a phone line, internet and cell phone service. It's really stupid if you think about it.

Agreed. We just did an "audit" based on knowing our Xfinity bundled deal had expired - we're paying soooo much for cable/internet and still have land line because it's cheaper to keep it!

 

[Spartanmack]

In what way? It just talks about wealth inequality. I would have to re-read it carefully to be sure, but I don't think there was a single opinion in the article. By saying this article says life is bad and unfair in America, you are implying that wealth inequality is bad and unfair.

so Mother Jones doesn't think wealth inequality in the US (or Russia, apparently) is a bad thing? It's just a matter-of-fact article saying rich people have more than poor people? well thanks for that Mother Jones. I guess by extension, we can't conclude that MC thinks wealth inequality is a bad thing, particularly in America since all he said was we are on par with Russia, at least according to Mother Jones. Maybe I should have asked what he thought the implications of that were or I should have looked for some of his prior posts on the subject before jumping to conclusions.

wealth inequality in itself is not a bad thing. The question should be about the standard of living for the poor, not who has more. That's not to say there aren't people living in poverty in the US and that we shouldn't do something to help them. But they're not living in poverty because someone else has a private jet and blathering on about income inequality is nothing but class warfare.

 

[Spartanmack]

the money we pay for mostly "luxury" items is crazy. In my household we pay almost $600 per month for cable, a phone line, internet and cell phone service. It's really stupid if you think about it.

Agreed. We just did an "audit" based on knowing our Xfinity bundled deal had expired - we're paying soooo much for cable/internet and still have land line because it's cheaper to keep it!

$600 a month? my kids aren't old enough for phones yet but that's 3x what we pay. we no longer have FIOS but your bill would still be double ours if we did.


We did the audit as well - my wife was pushing to dump cable so I started tracking how many games I would miss without it - was like 2 MSU basketball games and that's nto even an issue now that BTN is available on some streaming services. So we cut FIOS (cable) and the land line almost a year ago. Kept Netflix, Amazon Prime and added Sling TV (just during ncaa football and basketball season). I don't have a DVR because there wasn't a good option that would record over the air and streaming. Not having it is suboptimal but it's not nearly as bad as I thought it would be. Especially since most sports on Sling (ESPN) are available on demand after the fact. I looked at Hulu but it's double the cost of Sling and the DVR is an extra $15/month and I hear you can't fast fwd thru commercials.

Anyway, I recommend cord cutting to anyone who can get good reception from an HD antenna. I don't miss cable at all.

 

[Spartanmack]

the poor here have homes, education, and healthcare?

yes.

and smartphones! they have smartphones! if you have a smartphone, even if it's a piece of shit refurbished iphone 5c, all your complaints regarding inequality are invalid.

this is far from the only reason your complaints are invalid.

see also: Occupy Wall Street. some people in the crowd were photographed using iphones, therefore the subprime mortgage shitshow created by Wall Street didn't actually happen.

Occupy Wall Street was a farce - a baseless protest by whiny layabouts.

sidenote: all mainstream media in this country seems to be targeted at influencing a cranky, stupid, old white guy in Florida, who carries one of those old people phones, with a large print display so he can read it despite his poor eyesight (link - holy shit... they now make a "smart phone" version of the old people's phone. time to update the story for 2017).

you seem a bit more unhinged than usual here.

sidenote 2: where will spartahack move when he retires, given that Florida will be either underwater or uninhabitable by then?

Hopefully more rubes like you continue to fall for this so by the time I'm ready to retire, FL real estate will be relatively cheap.

 

[Spartanmack]

Lol, 10 ...15yrs ago if you lost your job the first thing you'd do is cancel your superflous gadget mobile phone. Now if you go to some of the more impoverished places on Earth, the one and only possession many have is a mobile phone.

And Donny Jr - who doesn't get Net Neutrality - mocks those who support an open and free communication network.

10 or 15 years ago it made more sense. now that device is the primary job search tool for a lot of people.

 

[Michchamp]

In what way? It just talks about wealth inequality. I would have to re-read it carefully to be sure, but I don't think there was a single opinion in the article. By saying this article says life is bad and unfair in America, you are implying that wealth inequality is bad and unfair.

that some inequality may exist is a given, and arguably desirable, in order to encourage people to work harder than others (so they can brag about how
much they work and the new shiny things they buy, and make everyone else around them miserable).

but the current extremes are indefensible, and not based on actually working harder than anyone else. and the current extremes risk creating a truly heritable aristocracy (if we haven't already) like we thought the modern era had done away with. rich kids do not work harder than poor kids. They don't need to work, period.

 

[Gulo Blue]

so Mother Jones doesn't think wealth inequality in the US (or Russia, apparently) is a bad thing? It's just a matter-of-fact article saying rich people have more than poor people? well thanks for that Mother Jones. I guess by extension, we can't conclude that MC thinks wealth inequality is a bad thing, particularly in America since all he said was we are on par with Russia, at least according to Mother Jones. Maybe I should have asked what he thought the implications of that were or I should have looked for some of his prior posts on the subject before jumping to conclusions.

wealth inequality in itself is not a bad thing. The question should be about the standard of living for the poor, not who has more. That's not to say there aren't people living in poverty in the US and that we shouldn't do something to help them. But they're not living in poverty because someone else has a private jet and blathering on about income inequality is nothing but class warfare.

We do know what MC thinks. But the article is matter of fact and the issue is one of degrees. How much is too much or too little is left to the reader, and it's useful to know how much there is if you want to have the discussion, so it's a good article.

I disagree with your black and white characterization. "The question should be about the standard of living for the poor, not who has more." In that case, dictatorships are fine if the poor are taken care of and prisoners in gilded cages should be happy. But that's not how people think.

 

[Gulo Blue]

that some inequality may exist is a given, and arguably desirable, in order to encourage people to work harder than others (so they can brag about how
much they work and the new shiny things they buy, and make everyone else around them miserable).

but the current extremes are indefensible, and not based on actually working harder than anyone else. and the current extremes risk creating a truly heritable aristocracy (if we haven't already) like we thought the modern era had done away with. rich kids do not work harder than poor kids. They don't need to work, period.

It's desirable. As long as there is unmet need, I think some inequality is the best way to get better. How much is too much, to me, depends in part on the ability to use money to buy political power. Inequality would be less of a problem if you could not influence government with wealth. But you can, so it's more of a problem.

 

[Gulo Blue]

yHopefully more rubes like you continue to fall for this so by the time I'm ready to retire, FL real estate will be relatively cheap.

Dream on.

 

[tomdalton22]

$600 a month? my kids aren't old enough for phones yet but that's 3x what we pay. we no longer have FIOS but your bill would still be double ours if we did.


We did the audit as well - my wife was pushing to dump cable so I started tracking how many games I would miss without it - was like 2 MSU basketball games and that's nto even an issue now that BTN is available on some streaming services. So we cut FIOS (cable) and the land line almost a year ago. Kept Netflix, Amazon Prime and added Sling TV (just during ncaa football and basketball season). I don't have a DVR because there wasn't a good option that would record over the air and streaming. Not having it is suboptimal but it's not nearly as bad as I thought it would be. Especially since most sports on Sling (ESPN) are available on demand after the fact. I looked at Hulu but it's double the cost of Sling and the DVR is an extra $15/month and I hear you can't fast fwd thru commercials.

Anyway, I recommend cord cutting to anyone who can get good reception from an HD antenna. I don't miss cable at all.

shit...we have Netfilx and Amazon Prime as well. I'm guessing that's another $25 per month.

The only sport I would miss would be Tigers games on Fox Sports Detroit...but that's a lot of games.

 

[Michchamp]

It's desirable. As long as there is unmet need, I think some inequality is the best way to get better. How much is too much, to me, depends in part on the ability to use money to buy political power. Inequality would be less of a problem if you could not influence government with wealth. But you can, so it's more of a problem.

if the desire is to ensure a meritocracy, "wealth" needs to be taxed at a hell of a lot higher rates.

the GOP has been making a big deal about the estate tax "breaking up family farms" but that's crap. they seem to fall over themselves while trying to avoid admitting that the personal exemption from the estate tax is a whopping $5.49 MILLION dollars.

though, I'm sure the Monopoly Guy would disagree:

"Come now,
dear boy.

$5.49 Million is not
a terribly large sum
these days.

T'would barely cover
a year's maintenance
on the yacht."

 

[Spartanmack]

We do know what MC thinks. But the article is matter of fact and the issue is one of degrees. How much is too much or too little is left to the reader, and it's useful to know how much there is if you want to have the discussion, so it's a good article.

I disagree with your black and white characterization. "The question should be about the standard of living for the poor, not who has more." In that case, dictatorships are fine if the poor are taken care of and prisoners in gilded cages should be happy. But that's not how people think.

People also don't think in such extremes, generally. I suppose it's possible for that example to exist but you'd be ignoring a great deal of information from my posting history if you think I'd advocate or even find that acceptable. And I disagree on the prisoners in gilded cages point - I consider freedom to be a significant factor in the standard of living. When you have a given level of political and economic freedom the question is more about the minimum standard of living than it is about relative wealth.

I don't think income inequality is a key driver of political influence, nor is corruption a necessary outcome from it. That's mostly a product of flaws in our political system. Redistributing wealth would be very low on the list of ways to improve influence in politics - and I don't think it would work even if you took it to extremes you'd still have a political elite class.

 

[tomdalton22]

if the desire is to ensure a meritocracy, "wealth" needs to be taxed at a hell of a lot higher rates.

the GOP has been making a big deal about the estate tax "breaking up family farms" but that's crap. they seem to fall over themselves while trying to avoid admitting that the personal exemption from the estate tax is a whopping $5.49 MILLION dollars.

I guess it depends on your perspective. People that don't have a bunch of money probably feel the estate tax threshold should be lower and the tax rate higher. But if you were very wealthy, working your entire life paying 35-40% federal taxes every year, only to have it taxed again upon death...I would be pissed as well.

I feel that there should be no estate tax.