Taking too much of the profits for themselves and not enough for their workers. Maybe I'm just jaded from my own experience though.
Does this list of disconnected "facts" speak to anyone else as "low information voter"? And in case you're offended by my conclusion, westnob, have you asked yourself why any of these situations exist? Allow me to parse it out for you and you can ruminate on them: 1. The Dow Jones is at it's all time highest (why? Is it because our economy is so robust? How are high prices a reflection of upper income "greed"? Is it "greedy" to pay a high price?) 2. American family income is at it's lowest in 10 years. (what collection of factors would cause this circumstance?) 3. The US produces the most oil in the world (what has occurred to allow us to increase our oil production? Has the Federal government been helpful in creating this circumstance?) 4. Gas prices are still at near record highs. (why? What causes high gas prices?) 5. The top 1% are just too greedy. (Are the other 99% less "greedy"?) Don't just post bumper stickers. It speaks to a lack of thinking skills.
If they're taking too much of the profits for themselves, why are stock prices at close to an all-time high?
Yes, he who hoards less is invariably less greedy. What you are doing is assuming that everyone wants to be at the top. I think it just might be true that the hardest workers out there(your valuation of the 1%) are also the among the most pathological. Pathologically avaricious for matters of status and power.
Here are my responses. 1. I don't know much about the stock market. 2. Wages were being cut back because of the recession, but are slow to follow the rebound. 3. Technology has allowed for new access to new types of oil reserves and the federal government has issued permits. 4. China 5. no, but there should still be limits. Don't just post bumper stickers. It speaks to a lack of thinking skills.[/QUOTE]
a false bubble? Ridiculously low interest rates? I answered this in the other response. If your point is that "I don't know enough about the stock market to make statements about the market being 'too high,'" then I guess we're at an impasse.
Our GDP is at an all time high, yet poverty still exists. Clearly "trickle down economics" is failing the poor and middle class. e: sorry I forgot to actually respond. 10000x the minimum wage is too much. (that would be 150,000,000$/yr)
Our GDP is higher by the $1T+ that Obama borrows every year. It's really 6.25% less, and flat or lower than it was after the recession's deepest point.
And what is the "correct" multiplier if 10,000 isn't right? And there is a severe lack of logic in the idea that "poverty still exists" as reasoning for how the rich are too greedy. The only reason the idea of "poverty" exists is because there are some richer in the society. You seem to think that if everybody has the same that everybody will be at the level of the rich. In reality, everybody would be the same but still struggling to eat and survive. But hey, everybody has the same so it must be a better scenario.
I think that there should be a cap closer to 500 times the minimum wage salary. That's just me wanting an incentive for higher minimum wage. I don't mean for my statement to imply that everyone should be equal. Despite the constitution, all [people] were not created equal. After doing some research, I see that some of my assumptions about wages were wrong. Minimum to be in the top 1% is making 1.12M$/yr, while average top paying doctor is 625k$/yr. These two wages seem to be in line. I'm not entirely sold on that "1%" figure, but I'll accept it. I guess my point is that the country at the top seems to be improving, but the average income is not improving. I'm just trying to argue that all wages should grow at the same rate, or at least scale for inflation.
. 1. Clearly. The Dow is only 30 stocks, they change occasionally and they're not adjusted for inflation. In other words, the Dow is a largely meaningless indicator of the greater economy. The stock market is up because investors are chasing returns and due to Fed policy, bonds are returning bupkis. Also, in times of economic uncertainty, there's a flight to quality. The Dow is chock full of large, stable firms that are favored in a system of crony capitalism. P/E ratios aren't static, so earnings don't necessarily reflect the price. 2. Wages weren't cut because of the recession, jobs were. The income growth has been slower, but for existing jobs, wages have been increasing. Where wage growth has stagnated is when there is turnover. It's a sign of the weak economy. As for the rebound, it's a dead cat bounce. There is no rebound. 3. Technology--developed by the private sector--has revolutionized the oil industry here in the States. The Federal Government has stood in the way of almost all drilling/fracking on public lands. They starve private plots of water and increase environmental regulations with the goal to stop all drilling. The only increase in drilling you've seen has been on private land. 4. Oil prices are high because of required ethanol inputs and gas taxes. Also, not building the Keystone pipeline has increased the cost of getting oil delivered to the States. Finally, the Federal Government has not allowed a new refinery to be built in the last 25 years. We have a massive refining shortage which increases the price of gasoline. Increased demand by China and India play a role, but it has been more offset by increased production domestically. 5. Who decides the limits on which people can be compensated? Can I decide that you should only make $20K? My point is that you spout these sound bites that mean nothing. Think about what you write.
Did it ever occur to you that the policies promoted by this Administration, while paying lip service to the poor, are really designed to line the pockets of their friends and political allies? The Democratic Party has become the party of Big Government, Big Labor and Big Business.
If there are abundant resources then they should be shared at least to insure a healthy standard of living for all members of the group. That otherwise abundant resources are not shared to this standard, it is quite illogical to assume it could be out of anything other than greed. It doesn't make sense to say that if wealth were spread equally then everybody would be rich, just as it doesn't make sense to say that if wealth were spread equally everyone would "be struggling to eat and survive"(poverty).
I think it's wrong to equate the Democratic Party with oligarchic tendencies when they are essentially neoliberal economic reforms supported mainly by conservatives and centrists that reside in both parties.
You find me some societies and civilizations in history where the wealth was spread equally and we'll compare that to the standard of living for the so-called "poor" of the United States today.
I imagine it is the people who should decide, and who do support by majority a more equitable dispersion of wealth. But in reality they are handcuffed by a system that doesn't listen to the people.
