Rich People Don't Create Jobs

[byu71]

You constantly talk about the inequality in the market system and the income gap between the rich and the poor as if in America it is the same people and their families who are always on the top and the same people and their families who are always on the bottom. Yet the picture you paint and the reality of America are two different things. People come from no where and poverty stricken backgrounds to become the top 1% of the the 1% and others who were in the 1% have made horrible business decisions to become completely broke.

You never ever account for movement between classes in America. It is the mobility between classes that makes America great. The reality of the situation is that the American dream is still alive. I am a product of that dream. I came from extremely humble means. My father never accepted government hand outs because of his belief on self sufficiency, however, we would have qualified for them all. I am no 71' or Warren Buffet but I have done well financially and have a very comfortable life. Mobility between classes, which again you continue to ignore, is still well and live and therefore, so is the American Dream.

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/b...-affluence.ece

Good comments. However, I should not be compared to Warren Buffet. While a nice man and great investor, he pays his Secretary around a half a million a year and then bitches "his secretary" pays too much in taxes compared to the rich.

My Secretary makes about 15% of that and I have no idea how much she pays in taxes, but I know she doesn't gripe when I give her a bonus about how much she will have to pay in taxes on the bonus compared to what I pay in taxes. She just says, thanks.

[USUC]

You constantly talk about the inequality in the market system and the income gap between the rich and the poor as if in America it is the same people and their families who are always on the top and the same people and their families who are always on the bottom. Yet the picture you paint and the reality of America are two different things. People come from no where and poverty stricken backgrounds to become the top 1% of the the 1% and others who were in the 1% have made horrible business decisions to become completely broke.

You never ever account for movement between classes in America. It is the mobility between classes that makes America great. The reality of the situation is that the American dream is still alive. I am a product of that dream. I came from extremely humble means. My father never accepted government hand outs because of his belief on self sufficiency, however, we would have qualified for them all. I am no 71' or Warren Buffet but I have done well financially and have a very comfortable life. Mobility between classes, which again you continue to ignore, is still well and alive and therefore, so is the American Dream.

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/b...-affluence.ece

I know the gap between rich and poor has been discussed ad nauseam on this forum and beyond, but I don’t even think the argument should be put in the context of movement back and forth between the classes. It should be about the economic growth, opportunities for employment, and an increase in quality of life for all in society.

For my age, I am at the lower end of the “wealth scale” compared to others on this forum. I make less comparatively than my father did (mainly due to my academic and professional interests). But the quality of life I am able to provide for my family is better than that which my father was able to provide us. This is not because of some technocrat who has designed it so. It’s because of the innumerable technological advances that have come about due to a less restricted market.

[Bo Diddley]

You constantly talk about the inequality in the market system and the income gap between the rich and the poor as if in America it is the same people and their families who are always on the top and the same people and their families who are always on the bottom. Yet the picture you paint and the reality of America are two different things. People come from no where and poverty stricken backgrounds to become the top 1% of the the 1% and others who were in the 1% have made horrible business decisions to become completely broke.

You never ever account for movement between classes in America. It is the mobility between classes that makes America great. The reality of the situation is that the American dream is still alive. I am a product of that dream. I came from extremely humble means. My father never accepted government hand outs because of his belief on self sufficiency, however, we would have qualified for them all. I am no 71' or Warren Buffet but I have done well financially and have a very comfortable life. Mobility between classes, which again you continue to ignore, is still well and alive and therefore, so is the American Dream.

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/b...-affluence.ece

There was an article on CNN Money which suggests that America falls way behind in socioeconomic mobility.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/09/news...l?iid=HP_River

The American Dream is supposed to mean that through hard work and perseverance, even the poorest people can make it to middle class or above. But it's actually harder to move up in America than it is in most other advanced nations.

Some people blame the FED.

[imanihonjin]

There was an article on CNN Money which suggests that America falls way behind in socioeconomic mobility.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/09/news...l?iid=HP_River

Some people blame the FED.

Lack of movement doesn't necessarily mean inability to move, does it?

[Bo Diddley]

Lack of movement doesn't necessarily mean inability to move, does it?

No it doesn't. But if all these other nations have better movement, what's so special about "the American Dream"?

[imanihonjin]

No it doesn't. But if all these other nations have better movement, what's so special about "the American Dream"?

The ability to move is there for the taking. My situation is not atypical. I came from a lower class family with parents who pushed education. I got scholarships for grades and advanced my position in the world. One thing that isn't factored in in pieces like the one you sited is people making practical decisions in their own life not to make more money. I.e. VC has chosen to be a college professor. He could have done something else in his life to make more money but he chose not to and chose the lifestyle that comes with being a professor and likely felt that the compensation was adequate given what he was getting back. He chose not to move up the latter because there was a sweet spot on a lower rung that he was perfectly happy with. I don't know about Peru, but I would think that type of trade off isn't nearly as prevalent.

[Uncle Ted]

No it doesn't. But if all these other nations have better movement, what's so special about "the American Dream"?

We need pull our military out of all those countries and get the hell out of NATO. In short, open the door for some country to kick their asses (again). How would their socioeconomic mobility be then?

[venkman]

Personally, I think its time for another Teddy Roosevelt - a good Republican who in many ways restored Constitutional values with his "New Nationalism" (and one of my favorite presidents). I realize that one might tweak a few folks, but I am a big fan.

Interesting take on Teddy restoring constitutional values. My view is that he was a progressive (though not as hard core as some). Progressives at the time were pretty honest (unlike progressives of today) about their disdain for the constitution and the concept of negative rights and limited government contained therein. They believed in a more proactive government led by wise men and experts who could take control of the economy and drive the country forward.

I don't hate TR as a president, in many ways he was a good president. However, (I hope) he forever rots in hell for the unpardonable sin of challenging Taft and thus inflicting Wilson on this country.

[Moliere]

I've read it a few times, interesting book. Don't agree with everything in it, but there you go. So you are accepting strong rules to the road? That would be a huge step forward for many on this discussion. That fact makes it far removed from a strawman argument. Excessive inequality may just be a necessary strong rule. You can't have some people driving 150 mph in limited edition European sportscars while others go 20 in a clunky old 40 year old car. It may cause excessive danger to both types of drivers.

I would argue that one of many (not by far my only concern) with excessive inequality in a market system is how it promotes and establishes dangerous rent-seeking. One of countless examples would be "Citizens United" (it has nothing to do with citizens and certainly not uniting them) and the resulting fact that the vast majority of SuperPAC funding which drove our Billions in campaign spending came from just 200 super-wealthy individuals. We've actually surpassed the Guilded Age on inequality and are facing equally troublesome problems.

Personally, I think its time for another Teddy Roosevelt - a good Republican who in many ways restored Constitutional values with his "New Nationalism" (and one of my favorite presidents). I realize that one might tweak a few folks, but I am a big fan.

It might help for you to start with the understanding that most of us, if not all, think that some amount of government regulation/interference is necessary in a capitalistic society for it to run properly. We aren't all blathering TEA party idiots that want no government and guns for all. If you begin any of your thoughts/rebuttal with that in mind then we might get somewhere in this discussion.......well, now that I think about it we may not

[Bo Diddley]

The ability to move is there for the taking. My situation is not atypical. I came from a lower class family with parents who pushed education. I got scholarships for grades and advanced my position in the world. One thing that isn't factored in in pieces like the one you sited is people making practical decisions in their own life not to make more money. I.e. VC has chosen to be a college professor. He could have done something else in his life to make more money but he chose not to and chose the lifestyle that comes with being a professor and likely felt that the compensation was adequate given what he was getting back. He chose not to move up the latter because there was a sweet spot on a lower rung that he was perfectly happy with. I don't know about Peru, but I would think that type of trade off isn't nearly as prevalent.

You make some great points that I agree with. Certainly we'd need to dig in to the study to figure out what it really means. My sense is that at times, our nationalism blinds us to the realities of other societies.

[imanihonjin]

You make some great points that I agree with. Certainly we'd need to dig in to the study to figure out what it really means. My sense is that at times, our nationalism blinds us to the realities of other societies.

To be honest, I don't really care what other countries do in this regard. America's greatness didn't come about by mimicking what other countries were doing, rather we did our own thing and everyone mimicked us.