The disparity between the incomes of the rich and poor has grown wider for decades. It's been discussed a million times. Have the older generations accepted it, and left it to the younger internet only generation??
No such thing as "enough" money and people that think there is are those who would end up on a show like "Broke".
DANG, Actually agree with a lot of this... Rich will continue to get richer and prices of products, gas and other items for every day living will continue to rise.. T_Man
Not sure but if OP/CF is genuinely curious we can find out! I'll start a GoFundMe page and y'all can start dumping money into it. Once I realize I have "enough" then I'll tell y'all.
Sure, an 86 year old man at the end of his life can afford to do that since he's not worried about providing for the next generation (or the one after that), but if he did that his entire life, he wouldn't be in a position to do that now.
I'm very sympathetic to the sentiment, but damn if that picture/meme/whatever doesn't invite counter-arguments: * Maybe those people could go to college and then invent machines to make our pizzas, stock our shelves, and drive our cabs so nobody has to (which is already underway). * Maybe teenagers can make our pizzas, stock our shelves, and drive our cabs as they are getting their educations and before they move on to bigger and better things.
To answer your question...usually when the poor feel hopeless and without power and get a little rowdy and violent. That's usually when enough is enough.
What's the point of life? I don't know but I don't think it's money. But I have found being able to throw money at your problems is a big stress reducer. (had it during the dotcom) Practically thinking though I'm going to say one hundred million is all anyone would ever need. You could put it all in US treasuries and have a million dollars income a year tax free.
Much more then pizza boys / shelf stockers, a billion people are starving and malnourished right now.
Without money, how would certain people know who's a winner and who's a loser in life scoreboard brah
If everyone had a minimum annual salary of 100 million, prices would increase to the maximum that the market would bear - just like always - and that 100 million would have the purchasing power of a few thousand annually in today dollars. Everyone cannot simultaneously be rich. The laws of supply and demand as it applies to the value of currency will not allow it.
Your point is 100% true. What is the point of making it though? The picture does NOT imply that everyone should be rich. It instead is saying if someone works 40 hours a week should be able to afford to pay their bills. And if people can not afford to pay their bills why do the people in the highest income bracket continue to outpace everyone else year after year?
Of course the first question that begs is what are their bills? Pease correct me if I am wrong, but I am getting the sense that you are trying to build a case for socialistic policy proposals, such as an enormous increase in the minimum wage, an ongoing massive redistribution of wealth to subsidize that, as this would be necessary. Market forces alone will not accomodate this without massive corresponding price increase's, which would be the beginning of the process I introduced in my previous post. Inflation in an economy includes wage inflation, as that is one of the input factors of production. But don't get me wrong, I want everyone to be able to pay their bills, whatever they are, and to be healthy, secure, comfortable and happy. Unfortunately, the scenario that we are living in here on Earth, with the economic realities (including the laws of supply and demand) and the moral realities (people are motivated by their own self interests and are periodically inclined to be quite evil in pursuit of those interests) does not appear to be designed to easily accommodate that, as much as I wish it did. The Bible teaches that the poor will always be with us. As hard as it is to accept that, it appears that is correct, regardless of what we do. Of course that does not mean that we should not treat others well, especially poor people. We should. But the socialistic approach will cause at least as many problems as it solves, and surely more. It will not resolve this intractable problem either.
I saw a somewhat decent link between stock market investments and the wealth gap. I know Bush got trashed for it but the social security system and America would have been much better off if we started investing it in bonds and stocks. Was it Galveston County that opted out of social security when it first started? I think they started their own retirement fund and have far outpaced social security returns.
Yeah, I guess it theoretically exists near the end of your life under the right circumstances. Practically speaking though when talking about healthy and non-elderly people, it doesn't exist. A person's bills are based on their life choices, not all life choices are smart. If a person making 20K a year tries to buy a 500K house, he won't be able to afford his bills....and he shouldn't be able to. Another example would be the person who should make plenty of money to pay rent and keep himself fed and the lights and water on, but they choose to blow that money on hookers and coke....that person now can't afford his bills, and he shouldn't be able to. Most people who are born into and live their entire life in poverty are that way due to life choices, it's not due to lack of opportunity.....and in the instances where a person has run themselves out of opportunities, those cases are due to life choices. No matter how you structure things, there will always be the screw ups. That's what takes a rich person and makes them poor and what can keep a poor person poor.
