51–60 of 88 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Uni... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_Uni... It's all in the top 10 or 20%.
The top 20% is household income over $109,000. That's not the ultra rich by any means.
The premise of this article is absolutely disgusting. The inequality that matters isn't the difference between blue collar workers and college grads with marketing and tech jobs. This is just propaganda to destroy the middle class.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not a broken premise at all. The focus on the ultra rich is mostly just a political ploy since it's easy to villainize extravagant wealth. But the vast majority of income (I'm including capital gains in this) is made by the middle class and wage-earning upper class, not by the ultra rich. If you take all the wealth of the ultra rich and distribute it evenly, every person would get a one-time, nice, but not life-chang…
I wonder if there was someone in King Louie's court that had a similar statement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not a broken premise at all. The focus on the ultra rich is mostly just a political ploy since it's easy to villainize extravagant wealth. But the vast majority of income (I'm including capital gains in this) is made by the middle class and wage-earning upper class, not by the ultra rich. If you take all the wealth of the ultra rich and distribute it evenly, every person would get a one-time, nice, but not life-chang…
The problem isn’t that people are ultrarich. See PG’s essay on the merits of inequality. The problem is rentier parasites.
I’m incredibly happy to see wages at the bottom rising, but I think there’s a serious lack of discussion around obscenely high executive pay.
No issue with the pay. But the US sucks at taxing rich people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Uni... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_Uni... It's all in the top 10 or 20%.
The top 20% is household income over $109,000. That's not the ultra rich by any means.
Bingo. And don't forget that the AVERAGE number of earners in a top-quintile household is 2![0]
[0] https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/explaining-us-income-inequali...
> Remote work, deglobalization, stalled technology have started eroding some advantages of higher-skilled workers Their premise is broken. The largest inequality is not between highly skilled workers and everyone else. It is between the wealthy (top 0.1% or 0.01%) and the rest.
Not a broken premise at all. The focus on the ultra rich is mostly just a political ploy since it's easy to villainize extravagant wealth. But the vast majority of income (I'm including capital gains in this) is made by the middle class and wage-earning upper class, not by the ultra rich. If you take all the wealth of the ultra rich and distribute it evenly, every person would get a one-time, nice, but not life-chang…
If you are wealthy you don't need an income that's taxed a high rate for the plebs, when your wealth is generated by capital gains. Surely you knew this.
Also, your hypothetical is a bit weird. The point of investments isn't to liquidate them immediately, but to reap returns. Owners of significant assets tend to borrow against them instead of liquidating them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Dogma makes for good rhetoric, but it doesn't stand up to daylight. The Soviet Union advanced the technology of not just itself, but many of its vassal states such as Cuba. China has long since abandoned communism-in-practice, but it is still one of the most advanced nations in the world. If the success of those countries cannot be accounted to communism, then the success of the U.S. cannot be attributed to capitalis…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not a broken premise at all. The focus on the ultra rich is mostly just a political ploy since it's easy to villainize extravagant wealth. But the vast majority of income (I'm including capital gains in this) is made by the middle class and wage-earning upper class, not by the ultra rich. If you take all the wealth of the ultra rich and distribute it evenly, every person would get a one-time, nice, but not life-chang…
> The focus on the ultra rich is mostly just a political ploy No, it's about the power asymmetry that breaks the promises of democracy that comes with it.
The premise of this article is absolutely disgusting. The inequality that matters isn't the difference between blue collar workers and college grads with marketing and tech jobs. This is just propaganda to destroy the middle class.
Matters to you because you wouldn't be harmed by it? All egalitarian, equality doctrines will end up here, why wouldn't they? What is the limiting principle? This is why they should be rejected. Pretty funny to see the outrage when the equalizing starts moving down the spectrum. Why shouldn't that blue collar worker want you to be equalized to him, why should he care about your disgust?
The inequality between a Google engineer and a Starbucks barista is tiny compared to the inequality between a Google engineer and Elon Musk.
The article only covers the former and not the latter and therefore acts as the kind of propaganda expected by WSJ. In the author's defense, they admit they're focusing on one narrow benchmark and ignoring capital gains and dividends in this article. The article still has value. But the fact remains that the article has the word inequality in its title and completely fails to cover inequality in its actual sense, the way we understand it in a political context.