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.
#1 your link doesn't work, and even if it did....
#2 you're comparing the average wealth vs's the median. You are actually helping him prove his point.....
1. It works fine for me. 2. His 'point' is moot, since there has always been, and always will be wealthy people and poor people. It is common sense that those people with assets will benefit the most from asset appreciation. I benefitted, and it has been shown that 60 million Americans have benefitted from the stock market rise, if you envy the rich and want fight for the poor, you should probably vote Dem in a few weeks since they promise to tax the 1% and redistribute the wealth to the poor. 60 million Americans is a heck of a lot more than 1%, so you can stop trying to pit everyone against the wealthy.
Actually it says nothing about government policy. It simply says the average wealth has recovered (+ some) since its peak in 2006. I said it is refreshing to read something without political bias, and you rush in to insert the bias.
There is no bias in my statement. It's a simple fact. Facts are not biased. That you think they are is the problem.
1. It works fine for me. 2. His 'point' is moot, since there has always been, and always will be wealthy people and poor people. It is common sense that those people with assets will benefit the most from asset appreciation. I benefitted, and it has been shown that 60 million Americans have benefitted from the stock market rise, if you envy the rich and want fight for the poor, you should probably vote Dem in a few weeks since they promise to tax the 1% and redistribute the wealth to the poor. 60 million Americans is a heck of a lot more than 1%, so you can stop trying to pit everyone against the wealthy.
Look he pointed out that median wages were decreasing, in a attempt to challenge that....you showed that average wages were increasing. Now you are changing the goalposts of the discussion and trying to say that while he may be right the point is moot because there will always be rich and poor people.
Proving that you are missing the point. The ratio between rich and poor is vital. Most people I know LIKE the idea of inequality. *I* think its great. Just like I think water is a great thing.
I still dont want to drown.
And thats the point, we're killing off the median income folks-we are literally paying them less then before.
so why dont you show us why its a lie? I mean really, he provides some numbers, prove them wrong.
I expect you can show them to be inaccurate, but I dont believe you can show them to be wrong. IE 40% lower instead of 43%, but thats due to how the source material estimated values before they were released. Heck it could be 45% just as easily.
Just saying"you lie" is a nice sound bite, but it really isnt worth saying unless you can show people why or how.
I didnt argue the numbers were wrong, lovehiscountry posted figures to show Finn was wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
If a liberal says it, its more often than not, a lie..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
You sure about that?
Changes in Wealth Inequality
The median household in 2013 had a net worth of just $56,335 -- 43% lower than the median wealth level right before the recession began in 2007, and 36% lower than a decade ago.
Why would I show them as being a lie when I'm not at all disagreeing that the household networth has dropped.. The numbers were posted to prove the havent climbed as stated by the liberal..
He was commenting on lovehiscountry's post unless I am mistaken. Finn made a claim. It should be noted, a claim with nothing to support it. lhc......provided information with corresponding facts to show differently.
Was it originally a lie? I dunno.
Exactly
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
#1 your link doesn't work, and even if it did....
#2 you're comparing the average wealth vs's the median. You are actually helping him prove his point.....
So why did you ask me to prove its a lie if their own postings prove they were wrong?
Look he pointed out that median wages were decreasing, in a attempt to challenge that....you showed that average wages were increasing. Now you are changing the goalposts of the discussion and trying to say that while he may be right the point is moot because there will always be rich and poor people.
I have not said anything about wages, nor did I challenge the claim about median numbers (he challenged mine without knowing what I was talking about). The study is about wealth, not wages. Wealth goes up when your assets appreciate, and they have appreciated with the stock market almost tripling in value. Those people with assets (60 million Americans with investments plus those who own houses) have benefitted. Their wealth has increased. That is a fact. Average / mean wealth of Americans is 19% higher than the peak year of 2006. It is a fact. I never argued anything else. Those people who have no assets have not benefitted, so the gap increases. The more the rich make, the bigger the gap. This is true as long as the poor have no wealth, and typically they don't (or they would not be poor).
Would you be happier if the rich made less, while the poor make the same? That would keep the gap smaller, but how does the rich making less help the poor? Have you considered that if the rich were hurting, then maybe the poor would be hurting even more than they are now? Why do you worry about how much someone else makes? Why don't you do what it takes to pull yourself out of the hole? That's what you should be concerned about. And no, I am not moving the goal posts because I have been saying the same thing all long, starting last year, when this thread was started.
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 10-22-2014 at 01:16 PM..
1. It works fine for me. 2. His 'point' is moot, since there has always been, and always will be wealthy people and poor people. It is common sense that those people with assets will benefit the most from asset appreciation. I benefitted, and it has been shown that 60 million Americans have benefitted from the stock market rise, if you envy the rich and want fight for the poor, you should probably vote Dem in a few weeks since they promise to tax the 1% and redistribute the wealth to the poor. 60 million Americans is a heck of a lot more than 1%, so you can stop trying to pit everyone against the wealthy.
These kind of topical comments don't address system model changes. Nothing wrong with changing models or discussing it. Value and wealth has changed over time and amongst different groups of people. It is no minor topic.
Using the existence of haves and have nots over human history is a very superficial argument. Like saying "something is going to kill me" why bother with what I eat or do. Details matter. Always have.
Having a system model reflect intended outcomes and be more balanced in its results is perfectly reasonable. Your opinion that someone is pitting themselves against the wealthy just because they are discussing what they perceive as a system model problem is simply your personal perspective. Models that are sustainable in the long run are more balanced. The current system we now have clearly is imbalanced. This is obvious to many people at many different levels of the system. An unbalanced economic system is a big problem since it affects everyone on the planet.
Yes, factually the article states that the 1% have done great......It's not the place of the government to see to that.
No, the study does not say that, but clearly you have decided that only 1% of Americans have benefitted.
PS Are you under the impression that the Fed is the government, or a part of the government?
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 10-22-2014 at 03:15 PM..
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.
I didnt argue the numbers were wrong, lovehiscountry posted figures to show Finn was wrong.
