Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

It's the Inequality, StupidFollow

#27 Sep 23 2011 at 10:36 AM Rating: Good
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Demea wrote:
So Bill Gates has his own square? Big deal.

I'm personally in the bottom 90% of that graph, and I don't feel all that oppressed or exploited.


My feelings on the matter are somewhere around here too.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#28 Sep 23 2011 at 10:55 AM Rating: Excellent
someproteinguy wrote:
Demea wrote:
So Bill Gates has his own square? Big deal.

I'm personally in the bottom 90% of that graph, and I don't feel all that oppressed or exploited.


My feelings on the matter are somewhere around here too.
The rich become richer, the middle class slightly loses ground, and the poor become poorer. Never mind inequity, how does anyone think that is a good economic model?
#29 Sep 23 2011 at 11:31 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Demea wrote:
So Bill Gates has his own square? Big deal.

I'm personally in the bottom 90% of that graph, and I don't feel all that oppressed or exploited.


My feelings on the matter are somewhere around here too.

Well me too, despite the fact that I'm earning less now than I was in 2008 in the same job.

But I know I'm better off than millions. It's hard to speak for the 15% that live below poverty levels.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#30 Sep 23 2011 at 11:47 AM Rating: Good
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Demea wrote:
So Bill Gates has his own square? Big deal.

I'm personally in the bottom 90% of that graph, and I don't feel all that oppressed or exploited.


My feelings on the matter are somewhere around here too.
The rich become richer, the middle class slightly loses ground, and the poor become poorer. Never mind inequity, how does anyone think that is a good economic model?


Not sure, long term divergence is bad sure. How to correct it is probably complicated. I don't understand the causes enough to give an answer. Things are 10% harder for me than for my parents? Okay, I'll have to work a little harder, but really life's not all that bad.

*shrugs*
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#31 Sep 23 2011 at 12:24 PM Rating: Excellent
****
9,526 posts
catwho wrote:
If we look at history, it was just about these conditions that spawned the French Revolution, wasn't it? All we need is a food crisis. (Have you seen how much apples crept up over the summer? They doubled at my local Publix.)


The crazy thing is pretty much none of that money goes to the farmer. Take a look:

Quote:
Lucas said red Royal Gala apples, which would be the ‘extra fancy’ grade, would sell for 21 cents a pound packed. If they’re not red, the grade drops to ‘fancy’ and it’s worth one cent a pound packed.

The grade below that is commercial and it’s worth minus-three cents a pound packed.

“You don’t even recover the packing cost,” said Lucas.

Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/Cooler+weather+means+sour+apples+farmers/5409221/story.html#ixzz1YnjWReFl



Meanwhile, Jimmy Pattison, who is one of the richest men in British Columbia owns both Sun Rype juice (where the "commercial apples" the farmers PAY HIM to take go to be made into juice) and a sizable chunk of the grocery store market.

The farmers get screwed so hard they are going out of business, and he makes millions while we pay 5-10 times the real "price" of the apple in his grocery stores.

Is he clever? Sure. But is it actually good for our economy to put people out of work and take money out of local economies (which is where farmers would spend money if they had it) so that one dude can be super rich? Nevermind everyone else paying grossly inflated costs for their food.

JUST AS AN FYI

Given the talk of farmers above - most farmers in B.C. are small farmers. We don't have a lot of the type of scale farms you see in America.

Edited, Sep 23rd 2011 11:31am by Olorinus
#32 Sep 23 2011 at 1:03 PM Rating: Excellent
I don't even like Gala apples. I prefer Rome.

Regarding the corn ethanol biofuel etc etc, there was some research into turning kudzu into ethanol being done at our university through the US Dept of Agriculture, jointly with the University of Toronto. Last I heard anything about it was 2008. Kudzu's roots are about 70% carbohydrates and starches by dry weight, which can be converted to ethanol using the same techniques they use for corn.

Make a hell of a lot more sense to use the world's fastest growing weed than it does corn.
#33 Sep 23 2011 at 1:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
HFCS is another abomination of the corn industry, also contributing in part to the obesity epidemic.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#34 Sep 23 2011 at 2:52 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
15,512 posts
Debalic wrote:
HFCS is another abomination of the corn industry, also contributing in part to the obesity epidemic.
Let's not forget the fact that it makes soda taste fucking disgusting.

I guess one positive of living in Texas is that finding Mexican Coke is ludicrously easy.
#35 Sep 23 2011 at 3:20 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
The rich become richer, the middle class slightly loses ground, and the poor become poorer. Never mind inequity, how does anyone think that is a good economic model?


You're measuring in terms relative to the rich person's wealth though. I don't agree that's the right way to do it. If yesterday, a poor person has $1, the middle class guy has $5, and the rich guy has $100, and today the poor guy has $2, the middle class guy has $15, and the rich guy has $500, the rich guy has relatively more money compared to the other two guys, but they both have more money relative to what they had before. They didn't get "poorer". They just all got "richer" at different rates.

Economic growth tends to do that over time. It's nothing to be alarmed about and it doesn't mean that anyone is getting screwed.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#36 Sep 23 2011 at 3:25 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
The rich become richer, the middle class slightly loses ground, and the poor become poorer. Never mind inequity, how does anyone think that is a good economic model?


You're measuring in terms relative to the rich person's wealth though. I don't agree that's the right way to do it. If yesterday, a poor person has $1, the middle class guy has $5, and the rich guy has $100, and today the poor guy has $2, the middle class guy has $15, and the rich guy has $500, the rich guy has relatively more money compared to the other two guys, but they both have more money relative to what they had before. They didn't get "poorer". They just all got "richer" at different rates.

Economic growth tends to do that over time. It's nothing to be alarmed about and it doesn't mean that anyone is getting screwed.


The point is that the rich guy can buy the poor guy 250 times over.
#37 Sep 23 2011 at 3:28 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Olorinus wrote:

Meanwhile, Jimmy Pattison, who is one of the richest men in British Columbia owns both Sun Rype juice (where the "commercial apples" the farmers PAY HIM to take go to be made into juice) and a sizable chunk of the grocery store market.

The farmers get screwed so hard they are going out of business, and he makes millions while we pay 5-10 times the real "price" of the apple in his grocery stores.

Is he clever? Sure. But is it actually good for our economy to put people out of work and take money out of local economies (which is where farmers would spend money if they had it) so that one dude can be super rich? Nevermind everyone else paying grossly inflated costs for their food.


I can't speak directly of the condition of farmers in B.C. (I'm assuming you mean British Columbia and not Baja California, but who knows?), however I also think it's wrong to discount the value the is gained along the way. By all means propose a system where no one buys the apples in bulk (at that super low price), processes them into juice, puts them into containers, transports them to stores around the country, and sells them to the public. While having everyone drive directly to the farm and buy their own apples might result in the farmer getting a larger chunk of the total apple industry profits, would it actually be better? Would the farmer be able to sell as many apples? Would there be more or less waste? Would he be able to match supply rates to demand as readily? Would we be able to buy apple juice year round in grocery stores anymore? Is that really a positive or negative thing?


It's just not as simple as what you're saying. There is a value added (a significant value) by the actions and work of the guy who's making that big share of the money.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#38 Sep 23 2011 at 3:29 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
catwho wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
The rich become richer, the middle class slightly loses ground, and the poor become poorer. Never mind inequity, how does anyone think that is a good economic model?


You're measuring in terms relative to the rich person's wealth though. I don't agree that's the right way to do it. If yesterday, a poor person has $1, the middle class guy has $5, and the rich guy has $100, and today the poor guy has $2, the middle class guy has $15, and the rich guy has $500, the rich guy has relatively more money compared to the other two guys, but they both have more money relative to what they had before. They didn't get "poorer". They just all got "richer" at different rates.

Economic growth tends to do that over time. It's nothing to be alarmed about and it doesn't mean that anyone is getting screwed.


The point is that the rich guy can buy the poor guy 250 times over.


And? I've yet to hear anyone explain to me why this is a problem.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#39 Sep 23 2011 at 3:32 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Olorinus wrote:
Meanwhile, Jimmy Pattison, who is one of the richest men in British Columbia
I can't speak directly of the condition of farmers in B.C. (I'm assuming you mean British Columbia and not Baja California, but who knows?)
Call it an unsubstantiated hunch, but I'm going to assume British Columbia as well.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#40 Sep 23 2011 at 3:38 PM Rating: Excellent
It becomes a problem when the rich guy says:

1. The poor guy is just lazy and should work harder
2. The poor guy doesn't deserve an education since he can't afford it
3. The poor guy doesn't deserve any health care because he can't afford it
4. It's the poor guy's fault for making bad decisions
5. The poor guy should just move to a place where he can find a job

These arguments all ignore the reality of the situation - when you're poor and you don't get a lucky break someplace along the way, it's difficult to become rich. The working poor are often already shuffling multiple part time jobs, can't get any full time jobs since they never had the opportunity for higher education, can't afford to get preventative care and so end up sucking up emergency room time and money for things that could have been stopped with a simple pill six months prior, got hit by a streak of bad luck and made decisions that he had no idea would be bad because no one can predict the future, and cannot afford to move because he is either so poor he has no money to even afford a plane ticket to another city, or can't sell a house because he owes more than it's worth.

#41 Sep 23 2011 at 4:05 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
catwho wrote:
It becomes a problem when the rich guy says:

1. The poor guy is just lazy and should work harder
2. The poor guy doesn't deserve an education since he can't afford it
3. The poor guy doesn't deserve any health care because he can't afford it
4. It's the poor guy's fault for making bad decisions
5. The poor guy should just move to a place where he can find a job


There's something missing here. The rich guy saying that all on his own doesn't in any way affect the poor guy, does it? What is the rich guy responding to when he says those things?

Edited, Sep 23rd 2011 3:05pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#42 Sep 23 2011 at 4:07 PM Rating: Good
The rich guy is using those reasons for keeping his $500 taxed as low as possible.
#43 Sep 23 2011 at 4:09 PM Rating: Decent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
1, 4, and 5 are accurate.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#44 Sep 23 2011 at 4:17 PM Rating: Good
#5 - So he's supposed to default on his mortgage so he can move to another city?
#45 Sep 23 2011 at 4:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
gbaji wrote:
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
The rich become richer, the middle class slightly loses ground, and the poor become poorer. Never mind inequity, how does anyone think that is a good economic model?
You're measuring in terms relative to the rich person's wealth though. I don't agree that's the right way to do it. If yesterday, a poor person has $1, the middle class guy has $5, and the rich guy has $100, and today the poor guy has $2, the middle class guy has $15, and the rich guy has $500, the rich guy has relatively more money compared to the other two guys, but they both have more money relative to what they had before. They didn't get "poorer". They just all got "richer" at different rates.

But he's not measuring relative to the rich person's wealth. The middle class and poor have lost ground compared to themselves from 30 years ago. Their income has not kept pace with the CPI, regardless of how the rich are doing.

So using your example if yesterday, a poor person has $1, the middle class guy has $5, and the rich guy has $100, and today the poor guy has $.75, the middle class guy has $4, and the rich guy has $500, then yes there has been a real loss to the two largest demographics.

Edited, Sep 23rd 2011 5:24pm by Allegory
#46 Sep 23 2011 at 4:24 PM Rating: Decent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
catwho wrote:
#5 - So he's supposed to default on his mortgage so he can move to another city?
That would be foolish. Why wouldn't he sell it? Are poor people monumentally stupid? Rhetorical question by the way. See #4.


Edited, Sep 23rd 2011 7:28pm by Uglysasquatch
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#47 Sep 23 2011 at 4:31 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
catwho wrote:
The rich guy is using those reasons for keeping his $500 taxed as low as possible.


Aren't you still missing a step? Isn't the rich guy responding to someone who's trying to take money away from him to pay for things that the poor guy never had before, but somehow magically today he's entitled to? Things which the rich guy didn't take from him, didn't prevent him from obtaining, and is in no way required to provide? Him saying those things is in response to someone else insisting that the rich guy should have to pay for those things for the poor guy.


So the question is: Why is the poor guy suddenly entitled to those things? It's not a change in his economic state. The poor in the US today are much better off than they were in the past. So they didn't really get "poorer". The rich person isn't responding to economic conditions, but to a social movement that has arisen over time. I just think that it's important to keep that in mind here.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#48 Sep 23 2011 at 4:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
catwho wrote:
#5 - So he's supposed to default on his mortgage so he can move to another city?
That would be foolish. Why wouldn't he sell it? Are poor people monumentally stupid? Rhetorical question by the way. See #4.


Edited, Sep 23rd 2011 7:28pm by Uglysasquatch


You missed the bit where he owes more on his mortgage than the house is currently worth, meaning he is unable to sell it.. He put $40K down on it when he bought it for $200K five years ago, then the housing bubble popped and it devalued to $100K. Now he still owes $140K on it, but if he sells it he'll be $40,000 further in debt.

Hence, the options are 1. stay where you are and try to find a better job or 2. default on the mortgage and move elsewhere, and probably never be allowed to take out a mortgage again.
#49 Sep 23 2011 at 4:33 PM Rating: Decent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
He won't be $40k more in debt. He'll be $100k less in debt.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#50 Sep 23 2011 at 4:34 PM Rating: Excellent
And homeless to boot.
#51 Sep 23 2011 at 4:35 PM Rating: Decent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Better than being homeless and $140k in debt.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 712 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (712)