Quote
physics
Why do conservatives insist that the rich are our economic salvation? I actually appreciate big successfull businesses. I despise the greedy fucks earning 1000x their workers. For my entire life I've thought that a strong middle class was an American ideal. How do rich people extracting hundreds of millions of dollars out of our economy for their own personal income benefit the economy? An economy of luxury goods is a shitty economy.

I said in the other post I'm in favor of a progressive tax rate. And I hope I haven't suggested that rich are our economic salvation. As an aside, I don't share your hatred of Bill Gates (or Jeff Bezos) though. I think both provided a good product that helped to revolutionize their industries, and continue to do so. I think Bill Gates has been doing more with his wealth than most governments through attempting to eliminate some contagious diseases worldwide, which is unheard of in human history. I don't want to get sidetracked, but do you really think taking money from them and giving it to the government is smart?

But that is a little beside the fact that taxing the 400 richest people 100% of their income can't sustain our costs unless the economy turns around.

Quote
physics
Henry Ford paid is workers more, and then they could afford his cars.

Yeah, he ran a manufacturing plant. I agree we need more of those.

Quote
physics
The liberal dream is for a strong middle class that can own land, and start their own businesses. If it weren't for the wealth vaccuum upward I'd be earning about $9,000 a year more (see citation). With 9000 more per year I'd be able to provide for my family better. I'd probably be investing more towards my own retirement, the local economy, and my private property. What is Sundar Pichai (CEO of google) going to do with the $9000?

Your $9k number is based on "if the level of U.S. inequality had stayed the same since 1979". Inequality is not the basis of how well an economy is doing. It can be a part of it, but by itself it is a very incomplete picture. Let me give you an example. If I make $1 and you make $3, you make 3 times what I do. If my income changes to $0.50 and yours goes up to $4, the inequality changed from 3 times to 8 times. If my income changes to $0.25, the difference is 16 times, even though the richer person's income didn't change at all.

Income inequality by itself does not tell us the health of an economy. Some of those charts are really good. I like the ones that talk about stagnation of wages. I agree 100% with that. The chart I posted comparing incomes over different periods of time said the same thing. I think we both agree that incomes for the bottom 80% are stagnant.

Quote
physics
Our economy is stronger than ever. More wealth is being generated than ever. It's just all of it goes to the top earners. THat's destroying us. I say the wealthy are ruining the country. We need a new economy which supports smaller more localized businesses.

[inequality.org]

No, our economy is in the toilet. The top 5% have, on average, less increase in income the past 20 years than from the 1940s to 1970s. Go back and look at that chart I posted again. The top 5% are making money, yes, but it is increasing slower than it used to be. This is another indication of a shitty economy. You can try to point at the top 1% or top 400 richest people, but that too is misleading. We don't have anyone alive in America today whose wealth compares to a Rockefeller, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, or Ford, or the inequality between them and the rest. [www.celebritynetworth.com] There have always been a handful of hyper rich people. How the 400 richest people are doing is a poor indication of the health of an economy.

I personally think that wages are a good indication of the health of an economy, and discretionary income. I would prefer to find a chart that goes back to at least the 1940s or 1950s (or further), but here you go:



Just as what eventually happened with every single great cultural civilization of the past, the West is in a state of decline.

- Paul