Income Inequality

[Ace Nova]

I think we're about to enter a golden age. An economic boom on a global level. Should be fun to watch and be a part of.

[foghat43]

I think we're about to enter a golden age. An economic boom on a global level. Should be fun to watch and be a part of.

And if we could only get the Fed to print each of us $1million out of thin air...we would all be millionaires, and the golden age would be upon us... problem solved.

[Roush]

Consumer spending is 70% of the USA's GDP (it's see-sawed between 50-80% in the 1900s.)

If the middle class is cashed out, and folks don't have money to spend, well...there goes your GDP. The 1st Quarter of 2014 reflects that.

[magisme]

I'm sure this is a sign of good things to come.

The wealthiest 1% will soon own more than the rest of the world's population, according to a study by anti-poverty charity Oxfam.

The charity's research shows that the share of the world's wealth owned by the richest 1% increased from 44% in 2009 to 48% last year.

On current trends, Oxfam says it expects the wealthiest 1% to own more than 50% of the world's wealth by 2016.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30875633

[downzy]

62 of the richest people on the planet now have as much wealth as the poorest half the population:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/01/17/richest-1-wealthier-than-rest-of-world.html

[PappyTron]

62 of the richest people on the planet now have as much wealth as the poorest half the population:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/01/17/richest-1-wealthier-than-rest-of-world.html

The real question of importance is not how much the wealthy have, but rather the standard of living of the poor; your average "poor person" in the US has a remarkable standard of living compared to generations past. An American in the bottom 5% is still richer than 68% of the world, and probably has more opportunity too.

[wasted]

I just think the US is bankrupt and not running a profitable show, but with bailouts, borrowed money and wars they can keep an elite or small group of criminals well paid and the country going in a fashion. this isn't a success story anymore. all empires fall, the US will be no different.

One of the things that's really scary is how much denial there is about that simple fact. Tell an American that we won't be on top forever and they look at you like you're a fucking alien.

Well they do have a kick ass military but actually I think they are killing themselves from within. The people don't own the land, wealthy individuals do. So the wealth is out of government control, certain family dynasties have the wealth and they seem to be interested in staying wealthy. A lot of them own property around the world and if it gets to bad they can just run to Switezland. They will be like 21sr century czars.

Meanwhile the Chinese are buying more property in the US and I read one thing about how they want to own the infrastructure of certain US states to pay off the money the US owe them.

By 2050 30% of the US population will be Mexican as they try to import people with lower expectations. We are all destined to be the slaves of the elite if we aren't already. We are waking up from the 20th century party with a hangover sponsored by hedonism.

Wow that was some primo crack.

[arnold layne]

62 of the richest people on the planet now have as much wealth as the poorest half the population:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/01/17/richest-1-wealthier-than-rest-of-world.html

The real question of importance is not how much the wealthy have, but rather the standard of living of the poor; your average "poor person" in the US has a remarkable standard of living compared to generations past. An American in the bottom 5% is still richer than 68% of the world, and probably has more opportunity too.

Yep. McDonald's McPick 2 and Mickey's Malt Liquor helps me forget about the fact I am unemployed.

[AxlisOld]

62 of the richest people on the planet now have as much wealth as the poorest half the population:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/01/17/richest-1-wealthier-than-rest-of-world.html

The real question of importance is not how much the wealthy have, but rather the standard of living of the poor; your average "poor person" in the US has a remarkable standard of living compared to generations past. An American in the bottom 5% is still richer than 68% of the world, and probably has more opportunity too.

Yep. McDonald's McPick 2 and Mickey's Malt Liquor helps me forget about the fact I am unemployed.

So use your 4 year college degree to get a job. You know, one that is relevant to it, not a checker at Target.

[Graeme]

62 of the richest people on the planet now have as much wealth as the poorest half the population:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/01/17/richest-1-wealthier-than-rest-of-world.html

The real question of importance is not how much the wealthy have, but rather the standard of living of the poor; your average "poor person" in the US has a remarkable standard of living compared to generations past. An American in the bottom 5% is still richer than 68% of the world, and probably has more opportunity too.

Why is the standard of living of the average U.S. Citizen the real question of importance when 62 people have (largely through luck, pre-existing privilege, having skills with market value and definitely NOT through working quantifiably harder than everyone else) appropriated the same amount of asset wealth between them as 3.5 billion people? When people are dying of poverty-related causes all over the world, how can this be socially acceptable unless one is a psychopath?

[PappyTron]

62 of the richest people on the planet now have as much wealth as the poorest half the population:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/01/17/richest-1-wealthier-than-rest-of-world.html

The real question of importance is not how much the wealthy have, but rather the standard of living of the poor; your average "poor person" in the US has a remarkable standard of living compared to generations past. An American in the bottom 5% is still richer than 68% of the world, and probably has more opportunity too.

Why is the standard of living of the average U.S. Citizen the real question of importance when 62 people have (largely through luck, pre-existing privilege, having skills with market value and definitely NOT through working quantifiably harder than everyone else) appropriated the same amount of asset wealth between them as 3.5 billion people? When people are dying of poverty-related causes all over the world, how can this be socially acceptable unless one is a psychopath?

Because just because Person A has more wealth than Person B it does not in any way mean that Person B is subjected to a poor standard of living. Example; if Person A has £1 Billion and Person B has £1 Million then there is a huge discrepancy in their wealth. However, it would be incorrect to say that Person B is poor. Why is it in any way important that there are extremely rich people in the world, as long as the bottom rung of society has access to all of their basic needs? A homeless man in America or England, for example, has far more options and social security (healthcare, food, shelter, education access, work opportunities, etc) than most of the rest of the world. That they live alongside Billionaires makes no difference. The fact is, most people in the west have never seen true poverty and simply see wealth as something with which to beat down those who have it. You yourself are in the top 5% of the world, in terms of income; what are you doing about the fact that you earn more than 95% of the people on the planet? How is the air up there?

[Len Cnut]

62 of the richest people on the planet now have as much wealth as the poorest half the population:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/01/17/richest-1-wealthier-than-rest-of-world.html

The real question of importance is not how much the wealthy have, but rather the standard of living of the poor; your average "poor person" in the US has a remarkable standard of living compared to generations past. An American in the bottom 5% is still richer than 68% of the world, and probably has more opportunity too.

Why is the standard of living of the average U.S. Citizen the real question of importance when 62 people have (largely through luck, pre-existing privilege, having skills with market value and definitely NOT through working quantifiably harder than everyone else) appropriated the same amount of asset wealth between them as 3.5 billion people? When people are dying of poverty-related causes all over the world, how can this be socially acceptable unless one is a psychopath?

Because just because Person A has more wealth than Person B it does not in any way mean that Person B is subjected to a poor standard of living. Example; if Person A has £1 Billion and Person B has £1 Million then there is a huge discrepancy in their wealth. However, it would be incorrect to say that Person B is poor. Why is it in any way important that there are extremely rich people in the world, as long as the bottom rung of society has access to all of their basic needs? A homeless man in America or England, for example, has far more options and social security (healthcare, food, shelter, education access, work opportunities, etc) than most of the rest of the world. That they live alongside Billionaires makes no difference. The fact is, most people in the west have never seen true poverty and simply see wealth as something with which to beat down those who have it. You yourself are in the top 5% of the world, in terms of income; what are you doing about the fact that you earn more than 95% of the people on the planet? How is the air up there?

Capitalist swine

[JeanGenie]

62 of the richest people on the planet now have as much wealth as the poorest half the population:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/01/17/richest-1-wealthier-than-rest-of-world.html

The real question of importance is not how much the wealthy have, but rather the standard of living of the poor; your average "poor person" in the US has a remarkable standard of living compared to generations past. An American in the bottom 5% is still richer than 68% of the world, and probably has more opportunity too.

Why is the standard of living of the average U.S. Citizen the real question of importance when 62 people have (largely through luck, pre-existing privilege, having skills with market value and definitely NOT through working quantifiably harder than everyone else) appropriated the same amount of asset wealth between them as 3.5 billion people? When people are dying of poverty-related causes all over the world, how can this be socially acceptable unless one is a psychopath?

Thats a double standard isnt it? The ressources of our planet are limited. If only china had a similar number of cars per family as the western world they could switch the key once and the oil would be gone forever. Actually theres no reason why the ressources of this planet should not be shared equally. But if this was the case we all would lose a lot of comfort. Everyone should ask himself whether he wants to live morally right or use the comfort of the 21st century. You cant have both imo.