LOL, ya'll are harsh. You never know what kind of relationship he had with his current wife. People with little money and lots of money all get divorced...people change. At least the woman can get her share and not worry about the dude screwing her over...they both get to do whatever the hell they want to after the relationship.
My sons mother took off with her attorney during my custody battle for him, and took him to Kentucky when he was five. He is 13 now, so yeah, I know what it feels like to be dry humped up that you know what. I don’t know why you got me started on this.
We don't compare the USA living standards to the poorest nations or historical times. We compare them to our previous living standards and those of other highly developed nations, and when you do you can see the clear impact of our extreme wealth inequality.
You're half-right. It's symbiotic: the economy doesn't exist without the people, and the people need and want the economy. The two seve each other.
So when the economic systems turns purely into pathway to move all wealth into a handful of people who have no interest in serving the people... something would need to be done as the system no longer serves its purpose to almost all the people who uphold it. We have far crossed the point of acceptable wealth inequality to have a fair society for the majority of our people. We can’t have anarcho-capitalism, the system needs to be balanced.
Well, I disagree with that. For any general statement to have merit, it needs to be placed in context. And, I would say a global historical context. Almost every low-income "poor" person today has: a) housing b) a car or access to public transportation c) food (indeed, most obese people today are low income people) d) methods/tools for cooking food e) access to public education. I could go on and on.... It's just that they don't live in River Oaks (or similar places); and humans, be given to jealousy and envy, give in to these venal sins and desires; and then they decry "The Rich" -- as if "The Rich" were stealing something from "the poor." If anything, it's the other way around. But frankly, the whole "income inequality" argument is ridiculous. If you have focus and discipline, in America today, you won't be in poverty. Heck, you'll probably be making more than the national median income. The problem is that those who are on the lower income rungs of society don't want to have focus and discipline. They want to work about 20 hours a week, if that. They don't want to spend their Saturday nights or holidays thinking about and acting upon ways to get ahead. They'd rather "party." There are of course, homeless and such, but almost always they are mentally ill, drug addicted, or men who have suffered from divorce. But to me, that's a whole 'nother category, and not really part of this "income inequality" debate.
If a person has focus and discipline, today in America, they'll do fine -- better than fine. The problem is most people have neither focus nor discipline. And that's what accounts for "income inequality."
Not accurate just do a Google search on the billions of philanthropic giving that Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Warren Buffet have done. Again, we all have fair and equal opportunities in America. Bezos has had great ideas, has operated his business very smartly, and reaps the benfits. You, too have the opportunity to take a great idea, launch it, and prosper from it - it happens A LOT in this country. OR, you can just get a normal job, take very little risk, bring home a steady paycheck, and raise a family.... whatever... What you SHOULDN'T do is exactly what you"re currently doing: complaining about an "unfair society" when we all have the same opportunities. You need to understand the difference between equality in opportunity and equality in result. All you're doimg is bemoaning "the system needs to be balanced" without actually saying anything tangible. Ugh... you're prob just trollimg me.
By that logic, our life expectancy could drop say 15 years and we'd still be doing relatively well on a global historical context, therefore, it wouldn't be an alarming problem. We don't compare ourselves to historic times, nor poor nations as the richest and most powerful country in the world. We compare ourselves to our growth rates from recent years, we compare ourselves to other highly developed nations. We aren't doing well in those regards and that is problematic. On the topic of my example, American life expectancy has dropped 3 years in a row, that is alarming and unheard of in highly developed nations such as US... and we already had one of the lowest life expectancies amongst the majority of our peers, to begin with. This is mostly rhetoric. USA has one of the highest poverty, rates among highly developed nations. We sit along Turkey, Isreal, Costa Rica, and South Africa. As much as I respect your views on discipline and focus, it's rhetoric and doesn't reflect the state of the American people today. The productivity of Americans workers today are far, far more productive than those of the '70s (about 2.5 times more), yet wages have barely budged since 70's. This throws your lazy and unfocused argument straight out the window.
Nah, it's just Droxford doing dumbass old Droxford things. Take it as it's worth. eta: did he steal the class ring? The bbs wants to know
You're asking me if I'm trolling but you seem totally oblivious to the effects of extreme wealth inequality on society. With statements like "take a great idea, launch it and prosper from it, it happens A LOT". Well, sadly it doesn't happen "a lot", as representative of the extreme wealth inequality in America shows. You acknowledged earlier that with the rapidly increasing automation and technological advancements being made today, that someday soon the middle class will die, and that this country is and will not be a democracy but instead a plutocracy. You acknowledged that the economy and the majority of people are supposed to serve each other, but yet it's nearly purely the rich being served from our economy with the poor and middle-class rapid declining. This leads to all the power being held by the rich, who use that power to control our government to further level the playing field in their favor. Whats tangible is our wealth inequality, and it being very problematic for nearly all. What's not tangible is the idea of saying - hey you just got to take a great idea and get rich. Nor your second proposal of taking a "normal job and raising a family", which is becoming more and more improbable for Americans by the day. It seems we have a disagreement that extreme wealth inequality even exists on your end, and if that isn't the disagreement, it's that you don't believe in it is and will lead to grave problems in our society. Here are some videos that have impacted my grasp on the size and direction of wealth inequality in our country. Spoiler
Likely better suited for D&D but I’ll just say this is a lazy take. You want to know why those autobiographies like Hillbilly Elegy, Educated, etc. are so popular? Because it’s such a rare story, and so difficult to stop the familiar cycle for so many families living in poverty. It’s not as easy as I’m living in the slums and now today I’m going to flip a switch and work hard and somehow get a job at corporate America that allows me to make more than the poverty line. You have to have so many things go right - you have to have a support network, you have to have somewhere to live so you’re not having to work for less than minimum wage on 12 hour shifts in order to save up and spend time studying, on and on. Again: Lazy.
Math question...and this is not me being snarky: If the lower limit for "poor" is $0 (yes I know debt can take you negative, but let's stick with $0) and the upper limit of wealth is infinite...won't wealth inequality always get wider if an economy grows? Actually on topic: in lots of cases of divorce in high net worth families, the parties decide not to break up the wealth so it'll be generational for the family, as long as the non earning member is taken well care of.
I love America. I have lived in various countries and traveled just about anywhere and I can say that America has become grossly underrated mostly because of smug Americans rebelling against their nations success and wealthy like wealthy teenagers do. Still the idea that Americans all have fair and equal opportunities is absurd propaganda.
No. The economy grew in the 40's-60's, but wealth inequality did not. I believe the same was true in the 90's though I'm not positive.
gotta say, you live in a fantasy world. it's so easy to discredit poor people as slackers. also, the only reason low-income people have access to those amenities is taking on crippling amounts of debt. i'm sure if you consider yourself successful it's because you worked so much harder than everyone else, right?
