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 is a tough question.....the answer is both yes and no. If you're hoping for some simple answer, Id say anyone giving one really doesn't understand the topic, or is being fed lines to repeat.
no success is responsible for income inequality. when massive amounts of people move on up, the gap gets wider- not more narrow.
opportunity does that those who can do and those who cant or wont dont.
The US wealth inequality is thanks to five years of Fed-mediated wealth transfer from the poor and middle class to the superrich (while placating the lower social strata with distracting welfare trinkets and EBT). The wealthy have increased their wealth through rising asset values, particularly financial assets such as stocks and bonds, whereas ordinary people only receive hourly earnings growth, which has remained stagnant.
"fun fact" I read recently: in the past year, the poorest 23.3 million Americans earned 36% less than the richest 2,915 Americans. Pretty sad state of affairs.
So, I take it that everyone thinks massive subsidies, historically low interest rates, bail outs, tax breaks, regulatory hurdles, and mandates have benefited corporate titans as well as smaller players equally?
. Does anyone else see what's going on, or is the veil of pop culture and circus show in DC too mesmerizing to take our eyes off?
Quote:
Originally Posted by texan2yankee
The US wealth inequality is thanks to five years of Fed-mediated wealth transfer from the poor and middle class to the superrich (while placating the lower social strata with distracting welfare trinkets and EBT). The wealthy have increased their wealth through rising asset values, particularly financial assets such as stocks and bonds, whereas ordinary people only receive hourly earnings growth, which has remained stagnant.
"fun fact" I read recently: in the past year, the poorest 23.3 million Americans earned 36% less than the richest 2,915 Americans. Pretty sad state of affairs.
Let's see... poverty was already on a downward trend when Johnson's War on Poverty began. It continued going down for a few more years, and then flat lined. It remained flat for more than 30 years, until the last decade when it began creeping back above pre-65 levels. Nearly 2 trillion dollars later, and poverty levels are going up. Hmm... at the very least government is responsible for trying to do something it isn't equipped to do.
Whenever the government devises a "War on Something", it is destined to be a massive expense, full of corruption, and a dismal failure
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.
. Does anyone else see what's going on, or is the veil of pop culture and circus show in DC too mesmerizing to take our eyes off?
