Top 1 Percent Of Americans Owns 40 Percent Of The Nation’s Wealth This Needs To Change (biased, retire)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
-Studies that look at real life individuals show wages in the vast majority of cases beating inflation from the 1960s to today. Even low skill people. Only studies that look at the national average, which ignores the fact that they are getting weighed down by millions of new low wage/low skill workers entering the economy - show that there are stagnant wages.
-Per the federal government statistics, people spend a smaller percentage of their income on necessities today than in the 1950s. Housing, food, clothing are dropping as a % of household expenditures.
-In 1960 things like air line travel was less common for middle class people. Today air line travel is common for the middle class. With better technology means more things affordable to the middle class including healthcare, cell phones, etc... People are getting more bang for their buck. People pretend this isn't true. But how many of you would go back to 1950...everything...1950s wages with 1950s products...no internet no cable TV, 1950s health care, etc...
-Companies spend more on other benefits to the employee today than back then. Wages are only 1 form of compensation. 31% of employee compensation comes in the form of dental insurance, health insurance, 401K matches, etc... a higher percent than when wages supposedly became stagnant.
Okay, so let me make sure I have this straight. The "vast majority" of wages have increased, but if you look at the average, they have remained stagnant. And this is because we are creating more and more low-wage jobs instead of paying better for these jobs. So essentially, an engineer now might be making a little more than he did in 1960. A secretary might be making a little more than she did in 1960. But the millions and millions of low-wage jobs and the majority of jobs being added today are very low wage, thus keeping the average down. HOW DOES THIS FIX ANYTHING??? It doesn't, and only a moron would believe that it does.
And to say this is "the best way" is not only supporting the problem, but advocating for it.
None of this explains why a mechanic in 1960 could probably support a family, yet a couple these days working in IT and medical writing can just afford rent and a little fun. Yeah, they have a shiny plastic phone that didn't exist in 1960, but a couple of toys doesn't replace what people could do in the 60s with a "normal" job. All of their gadgets added together these days probably costs the same as a TV of those days. Just think that the original Macintosh computer in 1984 in todays dollars cost half as much as a basic car. Having a cell phone nowadays is not some major increase in quality of life. Do you disagree? And by suggesting that it is, does that mean you support low wages since it's easier nowadays to buy a phone?
Keep in mind that a house in 1960 cost $12,700, or $95,000 in today's dollars. Where can you get a house in an average city not in the ghetto for $95,000? I think people would value that a lot more than a new iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
The middle class is increasingly getting shoved into the poor demographic. That's by design. The Dems know darn well that's their largest voter demographic. If Dems actually helped people achieve and succeed, they'd lose their vote. The only way for Dems to stay in power is to keep as many people as poor as possible.
So, if I'm reading you correctly: if someone helps me succeed, I will then vote against them and vote for those who didn't help me succeed? That's one spectacular nugget of information. Very helpful.
You weren't serious, were you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq
Conservative households give 30% more to charities in spite of making an average of 7% less than liberal households. What exactly are Democrats doing to help the poor in this country?
You do realize that number includes their givings at church (from past research on it), which, let's be honest, can only dubiously be called "charitable giving". Some churches do great things with their money. Others...yeah...no.
This needs to change and some people do not see this as a problem . This right here is why republicans should never have a majority of any every again if they do they will own 60% to 70% of the wealth and US will be a third world country
WHY?
Does it hurt you personally? I could care less.
Agreed. The dems and the repubs in power in Washington are essentially the same political party, the Washington Establishment party. They fuss and fight in public, and get their partisan digs in, but in the end, all elections might do is swap out the people heading up the committees or change the side of the isle for the person banging the speakers gavel.
This is why both parties hate the Tea Party movement, because they don't like being told to be accountable, or to reduce government spending and stop the waste, or to stop their abuse of power. To the dems and repub establishment, money is power, and they know that one day their side of the isle will be in control, and then they will control all that money and power.
So, if I'm reading you correctly: if someone helps me succeed, I will then vote against them and vote for those who didn't help me succeed?
No. Democrats don't help people succeed. They help herd more into poverty. That's exactly what has happened under Obama's presidency.
Additionally, those receiving public assistance have a birth rate 3 times higher than those who don't. Guess which demographic all those extra children will be joining as adults after they've grown up in poverty.
You do realize that number includes their givings at church (from past research on it), which, let's be honest, can only dubiously be called "charitable giving". Some churches do great things with their money. Others...yeah...no.
That can be said for all charities, not just churches. A few more facts for you.
Conservatives volunteer more than Liberals.
60 percent of Christians volunteer for non religious causes.
39 percent of atheists volunteer for non religious causes.
Conservatives volunteer more for non religious causes than Liberals.
Christians give $532 to non religious charities each year.
Atheists $467 to non religious charities each year.
Red states(conservative) give away more money than blue states(liberal) despite lower incomes.
Even deducting church tithing, Christians give more than atheists. Of 15 large studies being studied and combined it has been shown that that in no measurable way are Liberal atheists more charitable than Christian Conservatives. In fact, of all of the demographic groups studied it is the Liberal atheists who give the least time and money than anyone else.
Each family has a given financial 'capacity' to give monies away to charity. Yet even after the Christian has given a very large amount to religious causes they STILL give more on top of that to non religious causes than atheists
This isn't an argument for or against religion, it is a simple statement of how things are today.
No. Democrats don't help people succeed. They help herd more into poverty. That's exactly what has happened under Obama's presidency.
Additionally, those receiving public assistance have a birth rate 3 times higher than those who don't. Guess which demographic all those extra children will be joining as adults after they've grown up in poverty.
that's what the liberals want....two classes ...the poor serfs serviving on the scraps of welfare, in return for the votes into power of their liberal elite masters
While I admire your sand, it's too late, the horse already left the barn. Like a dam breaking inundating a small city with thousands of gallons of water.
OWS accomplished nothing.
OWS accomplished nothing
Not true at all- It just proved there are too many takers in this country.
The 1% and OWS are both filled with greedy usurpers.
Not true at all- It just proved there are too many takers in this country.
The 1% and OWS are both filled with greedy usurpers.
It accomplished something in my city - they cause several million dollars in damages to public parks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. This right here is why republicans should never have a majority of any every again if they do they will own 60% to 70% of the wealth and US will be a third world country
