Wealth Inequality

[Daddie O]

Amazing, in a bad way.  Check out this video.  The point of the video is not to suggest a socialist utopia, but to point out the fact that there is a problem with how things are done right now.  No solution is suggested.

Wealth Inequality in America

[Karen]

Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Stop taxing the money makers so they can expand the businesses they created/inherited and offer the rest of us decent jobs. Stop being so jealous of what others have worked hard to get. You're not entitled to what others have worked for; you are responsible for your own outcome. Government handouts are not the answer, we are running out of other people's money. People used to come to this country for the opportunities, now it seems they are coming for the handouts. Wealth inequality? Go live in Europe, that seems to be working out well economically.

[Odin1]

 The whole problem with that logic is wealth is not distributed like you want, but in reality wealth is earned. those that have, have for a reason, those that have not, have not for a reason, not everyone is willing to do what it takes to be wealthy, not everybody has the ability to be wealthy, I direct your attention to the earlier post of the lady with 15 kids.

[bagelboy]

Whatever happened to get out, work hard, be dependable, earn your keep, save some money, and above all have pride? I'll tell you where it went. Right down the drain, and that's where this country is going! It's sad!

[hbeck32]

I have always said that if you take all the money in the world and divided it a cross the population of the world, in 5 years those that have money now, would end up with the money again. If a person (country) can't make do and survive off the income they have now, why would they think if they had more, they would be better at taking of what they had. There are Doers, Takers and Users in this world, to bad the last 2 out number the 1st one today. (Doers)

[junior]

Amazing, in a bad way.  Check out this video.  The point of the video is not to suggest a socialist utopia, but to point out the fact that there is a problem with how things are done right now.  No solution is suggested.

Wealth Inequality in America

i like this one better

Reagan Vs. Obama - They really know how to throw a party

[MP]

You have opportunity to EARN money.  You want to change that to, everyone GETS the same money.

No, go out and EARN it!

Why should someone who drops out of school, does drugs, etc, bitch that they do not make the same money that one who worked and earned their way thru college, spent several years learning a trade, working long hours, and then makes big bucks?

Seems like all you progressives just want to take the money from the hard worker, to give it to the leeches.

Soon, you kill the reason to work, and ALL become leeches.

MP

[Daddie O]

Astounded at the lack of logic in your arguments.  The distribution of wealth is more lopsided than it has ever been, by a wide margin.  It has changed dramatically since the late 70's.  This is due to economic policies, not a sudden surge in work ethic of the top 1%.  Your stated solution to remedy the shift away from having a middle class?  The wealthiest need more tax breaks.  Amazing.  The rich are far richer than they have ever been.  Most big businesses are having record profits year after year.  Why aren't more jobs being created then?  I'll tell you why.  As the wealthiest 1% hoard the money, and pay their average worker 380 times less than themselves, the worker cannot afford to buy goods and services.  Lack of demand of to buy products and services means the wealthy business owner doesn't need more workers to meet demand.

I think one solution is more taxes on imported goods.  Make it cost prohibitive for big business to have child labor overseas make their products.  Products would be made better here anyway (like our Valkyries).  Close tax loopholes that let the wealthy hide their income overseas.  Close loopholes that let the wealthy pay themselves in "dividends" so that they pay a much lower % of their income in taxes.

Surely you aren't trying to convince me that you aren't in the top 20% of wealth because you are lazy, uneducated, drug using dropouts that have the same opportunity for wealth but just don't take advantage of your opportunity?

[Michvalk]

I don't have a problem with the rich. I think they worked for it and deserve it. I have a problem with the rich getting special privleges just because they ARE rich. If they had to pay the same % of taxes and could get the same dodges that we get, I would feel much better about how much I pay for my "entitlements". And the plus side, the country would be in much better shape.JMHO

[musclehead]

Astounded at the lack of logic in your arguments.  The distribution of wealth is more lopsided than it has ever been, by a wide margin.  It has changed dramatically since the late 70's.  This is due to economic policies, not a sudden surge in work ethic of the top 1%.  Your stated solution to remedy the shift away from having a middle class?  The wealthiest need more tax breaks.  Amazing.  The rich are far richer than they have ever been.  Most big businesses are having record profits year after year.  Why aren't more jobs being created then?  I'll tell you why.  As the wealthiest 1% hoard the money, and pay their average worker 380 times less than themselves, the worker cannot afford to buy goods and services.  Lack of demand of to buy products and services means the wealthy business owner doesn't need more workers to meet demand.

I think one solution is more taxes on imported goods.  Make it cost prohibitive for big business to have child labor overseas make their products.  Products would be made better here anyway (like our Valkyries).  Close tax loopholes that let the wealthy hide their income overseas.  Close loopholes that let the wealthy pay themselves in "dividends" so that they pay a much lower % of their income in taxes.

Surely you aren't trying to convince me that you aren't in the top 20% of wealth because you are lazy, uneducated, drug using dropouts that have the same opportunity for wealth but just don't take advantage of your opportunity?

strawman arguements are all you put out there, where is the incentive to hire people? full time? there is no incentive. you treat the economy like it's a zero sum game, the stock market is a zero sum game the economy as a whole is not.

tax code is astoundingly vast and provides for those that need the most protection. we need to go to the fair tax system and watch money pour into this country in the form of actual investment!

Mitt Romney paid more in taxes as an individual in 2010 then G.E. did as a corporation. they had a team of accountants making sure they paid as little taxes as possible, it was within the law and I can't say much bad about it. as a bonus for consumers you can buy GE products and not be paying any of their tax burden 

we do need some kind of tariff or tax on cheap foriegn goods, but we have to do it right.

ya know 2 years ago I was in the top 10% of wage earners in the country, as an owner operator truck driver I grossed well over $100G's. I paid my taxes at about the 20% range. I sure as Hell didn't think of myself as rich, my take home was below 40G's well below average. 

interesting that the distribution of wealth has gotten so bad under your idol Obama  the middle class is shrinking very fast under obama.....

[Robert]

DaddieO I am very much surprised at this post of yours. It seems in direct conflict with earlier posts that you expressed how good life is for you and cannot understand why everyone is complaining about O.
I will give a idea and example of how the current policy changes could make a major shift in economic status for the poor and middle class in the US. First get rid of the Federal Reserve and have Congress put back into the place of responsibility. The TARP funds could have been given to the middle and lower classes since no real benefit has been proven with who actually received the money. Not to mention the middle class would have invested it in housing and repairs and in buying all stimulation of the economy. The theft that guts our government, Stop insider trading by Congress, Stop congress endorsing building projects that are their own companies and then going bankrupt. Stop investing trillions in green technology that has yet to produce anything or even a return on the US investment. The US when taxes first came into being were ONLY on the top 3 percent of the population. The government did not raise money off the people but off the investments and transactions that it did. The government at that time had a surplus and was not running in deficits. In less than 100 years we have managed to bankrupt the US from a once freedom loving financially secure country with no income tax to what we have now. This does not even address the work ethic and pay values for different jobs that corporations seem to establish. So by doing these this alone would take people from a debt economy where we pay with debt money on a debt we already owe to buy a house with more debt so we are NEVER truly debt free. To a economy where men and women would actually be able to be free and pay for their purchases not with debt but with true payments. We are not a free people with the Feds putting debt on our head every day on our labor on our promise of life on our ability to produce. When you understand that you will understand what true freedom really is and why we are nothing more than slaves. It will also bring clarity to O's policies and why its nothing more than further bondage. WE have Reserve notes we don't have cash or gold that is a debt note it is not cash once we all wake up to this then the shift in earnings wont make a difference we will truly be a  free people the gov cannot sell us our productivity and lives as slaves to pay debt under the guise of a better life.

[Daddie O]

Life is good for me.  I would like to see life be good for more people.  The federal reserve was created by the Congress.  I do not agree that we should stop investing in green energy.  I agree that if you are affiliated with a congressperson that you should be disqualified from getting jobs without bidding.  As far as debt goes, after the Revolutionary War the government owed a lot of money to a lot of people (mostly farmers).  Those farmers were not getting paid while we were under the Articles of Confederation.  The farmers were very displeased with not getting paid, and they started a rebellion.  It was called Shay's rebellion, and its causes were a driving force behind the forming of a federal system as laid out by the Constitution.

Except for about a year during 1835–1836, the United States has continuously held a public debt since the US Constitution legally went into effect on March 4, 1789. Debts incurred during the American Revolutionary War and under the Articles of Confederation amounted to $75,463,476.52 on January 1, 1791. From 1796 to 1811 there were 14 budget surpluses and 2 deficits. There was a sharp increase in the debt as a result of the War of 1812. In the 20 years following that war, there were 18 surpluses. The United States actually paid off its debt entirely in January 1835, only to begin accruing debt anew by 1836.

Every time we go to war, we accrue more debt.

[bentwrench]

If anyone in this country thinks that anyone person or group has the wisdom to fairly re-distribute wealth they are a fool.If anyone believes the left in this country wants to help the poor your an even bigger fool,they are nothing to them but votes bought with other people's money.As was stated in an earlier post if all the wealth was spread out evenly it go right back where it is now in short order.
        Most of the change in the last 30 years has been caused by our corrupt congress,they come in well off and leave millionares,it's the deals that they make every day with the one%ers that harm us the most.
         If we as a people could find better representation,clean up the tax code(loopholes),enact some tort reform (loser pays makes less work for lawyers)we could see this ship steer a course to greater prosperity for all with out resorting to the restrictive corruption and elitism that is inevitable in any form of socialism.
This country was founded on the principle that individuals can make better decisions their life,liberty,and hapiness than some group collective of overlords.
We had to teach a harsh lesson to our overlords at the founding of this great country,are prepared to it again?

[musclehead]

Life is good for me.  I would like to see life be good for more people.  The federal reserve was created by the Congress.  I do not agree that we should stop investing in green energy.  I agree that if you are affiliated with a congressperson that you should be disqualified from getting jobs without bidding.  As far as debt goes, after the Revolutionary War the government owed a lot of money to a lot of people (mostly farmers).  Those farmers were not getting paid while we were under the Articles of Confederation.  The farmers were very displeased with not getting paid, and they started a rebellion.  It was called Shay's rebellion, and its causes were a driving force behind the forming of a federal system as laid out by the Constitution.

Except for about a year during 1835–1836, the United States has continuously held a public debt since the US Constitution legally went into effect on March 4, 1789. Debts incurred during the American Revolutionary War and under the Articles of Confederation amounted to $75,463,476.52 on January 1, 1791. From 1796 to 1811 there were 14 budget surpluses and 2 deficits. There was a sharp increase in the debt as a result of the War of 1812. In the 20 years following that war, there were 18 surpluses. The United States actually paid off its debt entirely in January 1835, only to begin accruing debt anew by 1836.

Every time we go to war, we accrue more debt.

don't go to war, I'm good with that. if we do go to war, pay for it before hand.

'investing' in green energy? there is no current return for this 'investment' it has broken Spain's economy.

[Robert]

The Plan called for the establishment of a National Reserve Association with 15 regional district branches and 46 geographically dispersed directors primarily from the banking profession. The Reserve Association would make emergency loans to member banks, print money, and act as the fiscal agent for the U.S. government. State and nationally chartered banks would have the option of subscribing to specified stock in their local association branch. It is generally believed that the outline of the Plan had been formulated in a secret meeting on Jekyll Island in November 1910, which Aldrich and other well connected financiers attended.
Since the Aldrich Plan essentially gave full control of this system to private bankers, there was strong opposition to it from rural and western states because of fears that it would become a tool of certain rich and powerful financiers in New York City, referred to as the "Money Trust". Indeed, from May 1912 through January 1913 the Pujo Committee, a subcommittee of the House Committee on Banking and Currency, held investigative hearings on the alleged Money Trust and its interlocking directorates. These hearings were chaired by Rep. Arsene Pujo, a Democratic representative from Louisiana.
The plan adopted in the original Federal Reserve Act called for the creation of a System that contained both private and public entities. There were to be at least eight, and no more than 12, private regional Federal reserve banks (12 were established) each with its own branches, board of directors and district boundaries and the System was to be headed by a seven member Federal Reserve Board made up of public officials appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate (strengthened and renamed in 1935 as the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Comptroller of the Currency dropped from the Board). Also created as part of the Federal Reserve System was a 12 member Federal Advisory Committee and a single new United States currency, the Federal Reserve Note.
I give you this only as a point of information to say while the US was in debt only a couple of time with no income tax why did we give control and profits to private bankers who now make the money. We were in debt then not in the bondage we are in now. The bill was drafted by financiers for financiers at this point we could buy back the Fed reserve for 40 million I think is the buy back number. So answer this its better to be in debt with some suppliers than to be in bondage with the Fed right? WE gave up our national sovereignty for the ability to have a immediate loan waiting for us, sound familiar? The feds sell the productivity of the US as a gaurentee on all our debts. So now it becomes personal if we could tax the fed or get rid of it by kicking them out and nationalizing our banks and like the constitution says only Congress print money we would wipe out the national debt. How far would that go in help everyone?
As for green energy just like everything the government finances it is open to greed, corruption, mismanagement and I have yet seen the government manage any program successfully. So while I agree green is good, not with government money.
  You have quoted some early figures which is good start looking to what has happened to us since then and see what changes happened to doom us financially. If we could bring the US back in time to some of those decisions and make better ones we would be in a whole different boat now. When the reserve act was signed

I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -Woodrow Wilson, after signing the Federal Reserve into existence: Woodrow Wilson some say the quote is incorrect but what was fact was his wringing of hands that he had signed it.

While my concerns about the pure integrity of the Founding Fathers they were extremely wise men and when the Constitution was written it was with a blue print to how this country could survive and how it could go on. When we see the deviation from this plan and the we hear and see the country going in a direction that they had warned us about we should have been very concerned. We can correct this it can be straightened out but not by the ones in office that have allowed the pillage of the country by bankers, (like the mortgage crisis where we see no one gets jailed or where were the controls to stop this in the first place? Government has failed miserably in this area and yet no one is to blame. So how do we trust anyone in office to do what needs to be done?

While war put the US in debt it made some a ton of money some of the very ones in Congress today that are lobbying for us to go into other places. So war is actually good for the US in the present skewed economy of the rich but not the average American. So we all wonder why the rich get richer? its really not hard to see the opportunity at their door is to hard to resist when people are not the important issue but money is. Put people first in the US and then we will not have to worry about the difference between rich and poor it will change by itself. But not by taking from those who work but by creating opportunity for them, in the removal of debt and freeing up of cash. Plus the encouragement by the government to start new businesses with the finances that will be available. 

WE both want the same outcome but we see different ways to achieve it, its not lack of social conscience that cause all here to not want to help but the fact that gov has failed and by socializing our ways it is a system that has failed already why do we want to emulate a failed system? With a government that cant control any program yet legislate laws to take away peoples rights? We are not about that in the US we are about self willed people stepping up to the plate to help of our own accord. doing what is necessary without having to be legislated to do it by phoney people with possible terrible motives.

[Daddie O]

Here is the crux of my argument:

Wealth does need to be distributed more evenly.  Before you scream "that's socialism, and socialism is communism, and communism is bad", hear me out.  Wealth is already being distributed.  In the past 30 years we have set up our economy to distribute it to the very top, and that is what has happened.  In the late 70's the top 1% had 9% of our country's wealth.  The top 1% now has 40% of the country's wealth.  You can see how the distribution has changed.  It's not that the top 1% just started working harder, it is the economic policies that affected the change.

The result of the change in policy has been less wealth for the middle class.  Less wealth in the middle class means less demand for products and services.  Less demand for products and services means less demand for workers.  Less workers means higher unemployment.  The reason for lack of demand for workers is not a lack of corporate profits, it is because of lack of customers, due to a lack of middle class wealth.

A typical CEO is making 380X what his average worker makes.  We might be in agreement that a CEO has a lot of responsibility, but is he working 380 times harder than his average worker?  It takes the average worker (not just the janitor, but the average of all employees) an entire month of work to make what the CEO makes in one hour.  Do you see anything wrong with that?

[musclehead]

Here is the crux of my argument:

Wealth does need to be distributed more evenly.  Before you scream "that's socialism, and socialism is communism, and communism is bad", hear me out.  Wealth is already being distributed.  In the past 30 years we have set up our economy to distribute it to the very top, and that is what has happened.  In the late 70's the top 1% had 9% of our country's wealth.  The top 1% now has 40% of the country's wealth.  You can see how the distribution has changed.  It's not that the top 1% just started working harder, it is the economic policies that affected the change.

The result of the change in policy has been less wealth for the middle class.  Less wealth in the middle class means less demand for products and services.  Less demand for products and services means less demand for workers.  Less workers means higher unemployment.  The reason for lack of demand for workers is not a lack of corporate profits, it is because of lack of customers, due to a lack of middle class wealth.

A typical CEO is making 380X what his average worker makes.  We might be in agreement that a CEO has a lot of responsibility, but is he working 380 times harder than his average worker?  It takes the average worker (not just the janitor, but the average of all employees) an entire month of work to make what the CEO makes in one hour.  Do you see anything wrong with that?

a typical CEO makes 180,000 a year. I'm not going to do the math but I'm sure it's NOT 380 times their average employee. do you see anything wrong with that math? the jeffrey imelts of the world are making top dollar and *perhaps* make 380 times an average employee, they are NOT typical.

your falling for the rhetoric of "US" versus "THEM"

[Robert]

Here is the crux of my argument:

Wealth does need to be distributed more evenly.  Before you scream "that's socialism, and socialism is communism, and communism is bad", hear me out.  Wealth is already being distributed.  In the past 30 years we have set up our economy to distribute it to the very top, and that is what has happened.  In the late 70's the top 1% had 9% of our country's wealth.  The top 1% now has 40% of the country's wealth.  You can see how the distribution has changed.  It's not that the top 1% just started working harder, it is the economic policies that affected the change.

The result of the change in policy has been less wealth for the middle class.  Less wealth in the middle class means less demand for products and services.  Less demand for products and services means less demand for workers.  Less workers means higher unemployment.  The reason for lack of demand for workers is not a lack of corporate profits, it is because of lack of customers, due to a lack of middle class wealth.

A typical CEO is making 380X what his average worker makes.  We might be in agreement that a CEO has a lot of responsibility, but is he working 380 times harder than his average worker?  It takes the average worker (not just the janitor, but the average of all employees) an entire month of work to make what the CEO makes in one hour.  Do you see anything wrong with that?

Wow we agree, up to this point, so now where do we go from here  This might be where we get into some problems.

[alph]

I think you need to reevaluate who's in your top 20%.  Sure "you" can say CEO's and people that own businesses, but from what i see, much of the top 20% are politicians and government officials.  How about the local school system?  I'd be much happier if they'd can some of those "doctors" and hire more teachers.  You can get 4 good teachers that will have a better effect on the students for the wage of just one high school principal. Well, at least here in Eau Claire you can.

I had four uncles that came to this country with very little, and they all died millionaires!  And no, they didn't steal it, they worked for it.  They'd be in that "20%" group you complain about. 

When I see "poor" people, I often times see them making idiotic STUPID decisions that keep them poor.  Why is it that many "poor" people can't buy groceries, or pay rent, but they sure can buy lottery tickets, and cigarettes!!  Here's another good one; go to your local apartment building complex, you ever notice that there's usually a nice sports car in some of the parking stalls?  Instead of wasting rent money, BUY A HOUSE!!  If you can afford a $40,000 BMW, then you should have been able to put that towards a mortgage.

I've known a lot of "poor" people, and I've known a lot of "rich" people.  The difference is a poor person is stupid with their money, while a rich person isn't.  so, don't go blaming those with money as being the bad ones. 

My mother use to always tell me; it's not how much you make, but how you spend it.

(then she'd say; life is like a box of chocolates......)

[Daddie O]

Here is the crux of my argument:

Wealth does need to be distributed more evenly.  Before you scream "that's socialism, and socialism is communism, and communism is bad", hear me out.  Wealth is already being distributed.  In the past 30 years we have set up our economy to distribute it to the very top, and that is what has happened.  In the late 70's the top 1% had 9% of our country's wealth.  The top 1% now has 40% of the country's wealth.  You can see how the distribution has changed.  It's not that the top 1% just started working harder, it is the economic policies that affected the change.

The result of the change in policy has been less wealth for the middle class.  Less wealth in the middle class means less demand for products and services.  Less demand for products and services means less demand for workers.  Less workers means higher unemployment.  The reason for lack of demand for workers is not a lack of corporate profits, it is because of lack of customers, due to a lack of middle class wealth.

A typical CEO is making 380X what his average worker makes.  We might be in agreement that a CEO has a lot of responsibility, but is he working 380 times harder than his average worker?  It takes the average worker (not just the janitor, but the average of all employees) an entire month of work to make what the CEO makes in one hour.  Do you see anything wrong with that?

a typical CEO makes 180,000 a year. I'm not going to do the math but I'm sure it's NOT 380 times their average employee. do you see anything wrong with that math? the jeffrey imelts of the world are making top dollar and *perhaps* make 380 times an average employee, they are NOT typical.

your falling for the rhetoric of "US" versus "THEM"

I have no idea where you get your figure of $180,000/yr for a CEO.  It is so far from reality I don't quite know what to say.  My wife makes $125,000 as one of 3 supervisors in her department.  She is not even a manager, let alone an assistant director, or director, or VP.

This might give you a better idea of the typical salary of a CEO:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/26/congrats-ceos-youre-making-273-times-the-pay-of-the-average-worker/

http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/15/news/economy/ceo-pay-worker/

[..]

Life is good for me.  I would like to see life be good for more people. 

So go find some "poor" people and GIVE them some of YOUR money. It should make you feel better.

[..]

 My wife makes $125,000 as one of 3 supervisors in her department.  She is not even a manager, let alone an assistant director, or director, or VP.





That's disgusting that your wife makes SO MUCH money as a supervisor.

Please PM me for my street address so she can send me a check to make me more equal to her  

[jimmytee]

Life is good for me.  I would like to see life be good for more people. 

So go find some "poor" people and GIVE them some of YOUR money. It should make you feel better.

Is it even a consideration, that it is our system of entitlements and social decay has more to do with the percentages of Americans and where the "wealth" is? The answer sure isn't to tax more. How do you , in a free society, dictate what someone can earn or how much is too much? That is what you're implying isn't it Daddie O?

[musclehead]

Here is the crux of my argument:

Wealth does need to be distributed more evenly.  Before you scream "that's socialism, and socialism is communism, and communism is bad", hear me out.  Wealth is already being distributed.  In the past 30 years we have set up our economy to distribute it to the very top, and that is what has happened.  In the late 70's the top 1% had 9% of our country's wealth.  The top 1% now has 40% of the country's wealth.  You can see how the distribution has changed.  It's not that the top 1% just started working harder, it is the economic policies that affected the change.

The result of the change in policy has been less wealth for the middle class.  Less wealth in the middle class means less demand for products and services.  Less demand for products and services means less demand for workers.  Less workers means higher unemployment.  The reason for lack of demand for workers is not a lack of corporate profits, it is because of lack of customers, due to a lack of middle class wealth.

A typical CEO is making 380X what his average worker makes.  We might be in agreement that a CEO has a lot of responsibility, but is he working 380 times harder than his average worker?  It takes the average worker (not just the janitor, but the average of all employees) an entire month of work to make what the CEO makes in one hour.  Do you see anything wrong with that?

a typical CEO makes 180,000 a year. I'm not going to do the math but I'm sure it's NOT 380 times their average employee. do you see anything wrong with that math? the jeffrey imelts of the world are making top dollar and *perhaps* make 380 times an average employee, they are NOT typical.

your falling for the rhetoric of "US" versus "THEM"

I have no idea where you get your figure of $180,000/yr for a CEO.  It is so far from reality I don't quite know what to say.  My wife makes $125,000 as one of 3 supervisors in her department.  She is not even a manager, let alone an assistant director, or director, or VP.

This might give you a better idea of the typical salary of a CEO:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/26/congrats-ceos-youre-making-273-times-the-pay-of-the-average-worker/

http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/15/news/economy/ceo-pay-worker/

the word is TYPICAL your word I used it. another word you could use is "AVERAGE"

please don't post crap from blogs, blogs are opinion pieces. I have an opinion too.  

your sources are left leaning, why don't you dig a bit and find the same info from fox news

from your first link: Average pay for the CEOs of the top 350 firms, including the stock options they exercised, was $14.1 million in 2012--up 37.4 percent from 2009. 

might want to read it before you stick it out there 

[LTD]

I believe Daddy O has made quite a reasonable argument.  Its true these  CEOs are not working harder than anyone.  The hardest workers in America have always been the ones that get paid the least. don't believe it? Go to a Starbucks early in the morning see how hard these people work I couldn't do their job.  And they aren't getting rich rest assured of that.  The company I work for the owner is a billionaire Ive asked the guy for a dollar raise and he told me he just doesn't have it!!  Truly laughable.  My high school quarterback makes around 200,000 dollars a month selling mortgage back securities.  The same bonds that crushed America in 2008.  He brags about working 5 hours a week one hour a day and his day  is done. Yet he produces nothing, a respected member of the country club that I can assure you of.  Daddy O is right an America where more and more have nothing to very little is not good for America.  I am not a liberal. I use to think I was conservative but I don't think the conservatives would allow me in their club  I don't make enough.  But its pure bull---- to think because you make a lot of money you earned it in every case.  Good DAY

[Clark]

Life is good for me.  I would like to see life be good for more people. 

So go find some "poor" people and GIVE them some of YOUR money. It should make you feel better.

and tell your wife to do the same.

[musclehead]

I'm not going to argue from the point of who works harder. who takes the job home with them? who worries about making payroll, deadlines, supplier issues, accounts payable, paying taxes?
who has more sleepless nights with worry over competition?

it's not the guy who works by the hour. he walks out the door at the end of the day and goes for a brew with the guys without a care in the world. the by the hour dude probably does more labor,but who puts in more hours paid or not?

[alph]

  My wife makes $125,000 as one of 3 supervisors in her department.  She is not even a manager, let alone an assistant director, or director, or VP.

So, are you bragging you're wife is part of that rich 20%?  Pretty arrogant of you.  Maybe she should be paying more money in taxes, I'll bet she doesn't do very much for that money now does she?

Its true these  CEOs are not working harder than anyone.  The hardest workers in America have always been the ones that get paid the least. don't believe it? Go to a Starbucks early in the morning see how hard these people work I couldn't do their job. 

yep, you're absolutely correct.  i'm making more money now than i ever have in my life, not because i'm a "hard" worker, but because i'm a SMARTER worker!!  ever think of that?  i get paid to use my brain to solve problems.  every hour that it takes me to solve that problem costs the company $2000 (at the minimum) so, there's an old saying; "you get what you pay for".  i make more than some guys in our plant, why? 'cause when they have a machine down for 8 hours, and i end up fixing it in 1 hour, right there's a good reason.  It's called knowledge, and usually the more you make, the smarter you are at it.

so, when that girl at starbucks is busting her butt, and after a few years she learns she's worth more than what she's getting, and she goes back to school to get that degree, then guess what, now she's working less, and making more!!!  go figure!!!

[Xtracho]

I believe Daddy O has made quite a reasonable argument.  Its true these  CEOs are not working harder than anyone.  The hardest workers in America have always been the ones that get paid the least. don't believe it? Go to a Starbucks early in the morning see how hard these people work I couldn't do their job.  And they aren't getting rich rest assured of that.  The company I work for the owner is a billionaire Ive asked the guy for a dollar raise and he told me he just doesn't have it!!  Truly laughable.  My high school quarterback makes around 200,000 dollars a month selling mortgage back securities.  The same bonds that crushed America in 2008.  He brags about working 5 hours a week one hour a day and his day  is done. Yet he produces nothing, a respected member of the country club that I can assure you of.  Daddy O is right an America where more and more have nothing to very little is not good for America.  I am not a liberal. I use to think I was conservative but I don't think the conservatives would allow me in their club  I don't make enough.  But its pure bull---- to think because you make a lot of money you earned it in every case.  Good DAY

That's just pure crapola and envy. Boss won't give you a raise you think you deserve? Quit and go find one that will. They are out there. It's just most people are too cursed fat, lazy, and entrenched in where they are that they haven't the motivation nor the ambition to do it. Instead they'll complain and still go to work on Monday. Blame your Head Coach for finding a way to make big money? Please. Was it legal? Yeah yeah I know....what's legal ain't always right...yadda yadda yadda.

Starbucks? Wal-Mart? Home Depot?...make a list...no one is forcing those people to work there.

So whaddya wanna do? Put some arbitrary multiple on the earnings of CEO's? Dictate to free enterprise how to run its business? Put a limit on how much a supervisor making $125K/year should really be earning? Sure! Let's do it. Right then and there you've created a sure fire recipe for mediocrity. Are you really so blind as to see what the resident yahoo that started this thread is promoting? Wholesale income distribution....nothing less than that.

[G-Man]

Here is the crux of my argument:

Wealth does need to be distributed more evenly.  Before you scream "that's socialism, and socialism is communism, and communism is bad", hear me out.  Wealth is already being distributed.  In the past 30 years we have set up our economy to distribute it to the very top, and that is what has happened.  In the late 70's the top 1% had 9% of our country's wealth.  The top 1% now has 40% of the country's wealth.  You can see how the distribution has changed.  It's not that the top 1% just started working harder, it is the economic policies that affected the change.

The result of the change in policy has been less wealth for the middle class.  Less wealth in the middle class means less demand for products and services.  Less demand for products and services means less demand for workers.  Less workers means higher unemployment.  The reason for lack of demand for workers is not a lack of corporate profits, it is because of lack of customers, due to a lack of middle class wealth.

A typical CEO is making 380X what his average worker makes.  We might be in agreement that a CEO has a lot of responsibility, but is he working 380 times harder than his average worker?  It takes the average worker (not just the janitor, but the average of all employees) an entire month of work to make what the CEO makes in one hour.  Do you see anything wrong with that?

a typical CEO makes 180,000 a year. I'm not going to do the math but I'm sure it's NOT 380 times their average employee. do you see anything wrong with that math? the jeffrey imelts of the world are making top dollar and *perhaps* make 380 times an average employee, they are NOT typical.

your falling for the rhetoric of "US" versus "THEM"

Doesn't make any difference.  The dozens that make the huge money have become the poster-children for the left.  Real world numbers and actual real world happenings mean absolutely nothing.  We see it over and over again.  We've heard from business owners who have actually cut back to under 50 workers because of the ACA, but it means nothing, and other examples of how their way has had negative effects, but it doesn't matter, because there are still wealthy people in America.  Until there are no longer wealthy people to lay blame on, there will always be this riff.  But what happens when there are no more wealthy in this country and only politicians to rely on for jobs and opportunity?.........we're screwed.

[G-Man]

Here is the crux of my argument:

Wealth does need to be distributed more evenly.  Before you scream "that's socialism, and socialism is communism, and communism is bad", hear me out.  Wealth is already being distributed.  In the past 30 years we have set up our economy to distribute it to the very top, and that is what has happened.  In the late 70's the top 1% had 9% of our country's wealth.  The top 1% now has 40% of the country's wealth.  You can see how the distribution has changed.  It's not that the top 1% just started working harder, it is the economic policies that affected the change.

The result of the change in policy has been less wealth for the middle class.  Less wealth in the middle class means less demand for products and services.  Less demand for products and services means less demand for workers.  Less workers means higher unemployment.  The reason for lack of demand for workers is not a lack of corporate profits, it is because of lack of customers, due to a lack of middle class wealth.

A typical CEO is making 380X what his average worker makes.  We might be in agreement that a CEO has a lot of responsibility, but is he working 380 times harder than his average worker?  It takes the average worker (not just the janitor, but the average of all employees) an entire month of work to make what the CEO makes in one hour.  Do you see anything wrong with that?

a typical CEO makes 180,000 a year. I'm not going to do the math but I'm sure it's NOT 380 times their average employee. do you see anything wrong with that math? the jeffrey imelts of the world are making top dollar and *perhaps* make 380 times an average employee, they are NOT typical.

your falling for the rhetoric of "US" versus "THEM"

I have no idea where you get your figure of $180,000/yr for a CEO.  It is so far from reality I don't quite know what to say.  My wife makes $125,000 as one of 3 supervisors in her department.  She is not even a manager, let alone an assistant director, or director, or VP.

This might give you a better idea of the typical salary of a CEO:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/26/congrats-ceos-youre-making-273-times-the-pay-of-the-average-worker/

http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/15/news/economy/ceo-pay-worker/

First it's 830 times the average worker, now its 273 times the average worker.  Then it'll be another number that fits the argument.

[jimmytee]

LTD: I'm sorry,but by your own measure, it's pure bull to say that the hardest workers in America are in the lower paid jobs. That is just garbage. I'm gonna call it like it is. Sorry. Your boss doesn't want to give you a dollar raise, work somewhere else. Start your own company and run it how you see fit. I don't know your situation, but to equate your limited experience with your employer and your "friend" as some real assessment of the inequality of our socioeconomic system is silly. It sounds like pure jealousy. Class envy, I can assure you that I am not wealthy, is the tool used to legitimize redistribution of wealth. Are there wealthy people who may be less deserving than those that have not? I'm sure of it. Are there plenty of people who will settle for what comes their way by attrition, apathy , or an unwillingness to achieve ? Yes there are. Does the government enslave people into a life of poverty, because of an indoctrination into the belief that they can't be self sufficient on their own? Yes it does . Do we have societal problems brewing to a head because of such policies? I posted this older video yesterday. We have segments of our society losing the battle,not because of some that are successful, but we foster a culture that has lost real values. I see successful people putting in large amounts of hour and efforts into their carreers. Often at the sacrifice of time with families. I also see the opposite with lower income workers. Does that mean that I can measure all by those limited experiences. I'd say not.
Woman With 15 Kids: "Somebody needs to be held accountable, and they need to pay."

[Stanley Steamer]

I'm making pretty good $$ for my profession and the area I'm located in.....I work as a landscape crewleader for the local City/County Govt......been doing the same job for 18 yrs....I'm the highest paid crewleader even though a few have been there 10 yrs or more longer than me.....honest performance based evaluations is what put me ahead.....I was in a "Pilot" career advancement program for 5 years before some circumstances outside my control caused me to lose the first promotion to Supervisor I tried for.....mostly political.....and I was PISSED for a long time.....those jobs only come open once every 10-15yrs.....crewleader jobs come open all the time.....I tried once more a couple of years ago for another one....found it was already "decided" before the interviews and it was just a dog and pony show for the HR folks.....all "academic"......the guy they gave it to from the outside had owned a landscape business that he was supposedly closing down.....never happened.....and he has screwed up on two occasions bad enough to be suspended twice in the 2 yrs he's been there....my coworkers have told me they wish I had of gotten the job.....because I'm honest, dependable and fair across the board....even though all of them agree my crew is the hardest working one there.....at least I have their respect and it was earned.....

I was brought up to believe if you got the education, worked hard, was loyal, honest, and ethical.....that was how you got ahead......I found out that is NOT the case......and others CAN have an impact on your forward progression if you want to stay the course at a job you used to pour 110% of your heart in......

[jimmytee]

Stanley Steamer, life isn't fair, it sucks when you're in the moment, but we can't socialize fairness. Fairness by who's measure? The kinds of things you describe will always be there under any system. You do have the  ability to work somewhere else. Something kept you there. Did I understand you right, you work for your local government? My wife works for Human Resource Command , here at Fort Knox. She is well qualified, and an extremely hard worker. She does the jobs of many and beyond her pay grade. She's watched other less qualified workers, with less responsibilities, get promoted because they worked the system. It is quite often she gets bewildered ,puzzled responses when others find out her pay grade. She does work normally associated with pay grades 2 rungs up or more. She at least got some recent recognition with two awards. One for civilian worker of the quarter and another for civilian worker of the year. GO Patti.

[Moonshot_1]

[quote .....at least I have their respect and it was earned.....[/quote]

And that, my friends is priceless.

Does it matter what that CEO makes? Does it matter what anyone else makes?

Why, in a land of Free People do we think we need to confiscate the earnings of others because we think they are doing too well?

I applaud them.

Earn the respect of your peers. Invest in your personal integrity.

I'll applaud you as well.  

[Stanley Steamer]

[quote .....at least I have their respect and it was earned.....

And that, my friends is priceless.

Does it matter what that CEO makes? Does it matter what anyone else makes?

Why, in a land of Free People do we think we need to confiscate the earnings of others because we think they are doing too well?

I applaud them.

Earn the respect of your peers. Invest in your personal integrity.

I'll applaud you as well.  


[/quote]


I had jobs as a bag boy/stocker.....janitor......garden worker...groundskeeper at a golf course.....always trying to work my way up....investing in my own education....getting all the certifications in my industry so I'd be as knowledgeable as possible.....to say I was driven would be an understatement.....Daddy always told me I could have anything I worked for....parents never bought me a car....never paid my insurance or gas/maintenance for it.....I was on my own, but they gave me a roof over my head and fed me as long as I was under their roof....and they gave me my work ethic.....that is probably the best thing they could have done.....I've earned anything nice I've ever gotten.....I'm probably never going to be rich, but I don't envy those who are............sure, I respect the ones who've earned it......the ones handed it, no......I don't care what kind of work a person does, but they should be the best they can at it....that is worthy of respect.......

[LTD]

Stirred up a hornets nest!! Its still America you can have your say I still respect that. But I still say when many have nothing to very little its not good for America you can take that to the bank. And yes I have moved on from the job lol.

[musclehead]

I notice daddie-o ran away from his own link.  it's tough when you post something that should make your point and it does nothing but shoot you in the foot

[alph]

here's a good article for him;

http://inplainsight.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/13/20923154-living-on-5000-a-year-on-purpose-meet-americas-intentional-poor?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1

some people WANT to be poor!!

[Clark]

I notice daddie-o ran away from his own link.  it's tough when you post something that should make your point and it does nothing but shoot you in the foot

he''lbe back.. prolly watchin Joy Bayhoe..or Chris Matthews to get his fill of liberal