Thread: "America is the wealthiest nation on Earth, but its people are mainly poor..."

i was reading somewhere that top 3% of people control 90% of the money in US

If people would stop living about their means and trying to keep up with the "Jones", I think we would be better off. We are a country of greed.

Which nation was it again that has a much higher per capita income? I wanna move there.

Originally Posted by GearsMcGilf

Which nation was it again that has a much higher per capita income? I wanna move there.

i believe it is Luxembourg

Originally Posted by Imosted

i believe it is Luxembourg

what was / is it in terms of USD any idea?

i was wrong but u still wanna go to luxembourg u dotn wanna live in Qatar:P
1-Qatar 88.232
2- Luxembourg 80304
6-US 47.123

Originally Posted by Imosted

i was reading somewhere that top 3% of people control 90% of the money in US

Or, "wealth."

Also, the Ginni Index (Income Gap) has been increasing for decades and is the highest in the industrialized world. The middle class has been shrinking since the 1970s.

All the hallmarks of a banana republic.

Poor by what standard?

I grew up as poor as you can get in this country. My mom didn't even take government assistance. I would go without food for a day (sometimes a day and a half). It sucked, but I never starved so much that my life was in jeopardy. My life was never in jeopardy either. There were always police around to keep me safe.

In other countries, people die from starvation and have bands of thieves take their stuff.

One persons "poor" is another's decent standard of living.

Originally Posted by DOMS

Poor by what standard?

I grew up as poor as you can get in this country. My mom didn't even take government assistance. I would go without food for a day (sometimes a day and a half). It sucked, but I never starved so much that my life was in jeopardy. My life was never in jeopardy either. There were always police around to keep me safe.

In other countries, people die from starvation and have bands of thieves take their stuff.

One persons "poor" is another's decent standard of living.

You missed the point....more like ignored it.

The gap from rich to poor is huge in America and the myth of wealth is even bigger. No one said being poor in America was as bad as Mexico or India, but it is worse than in most other industrilazed nations.


Kurt Vonnegut's quote is not so much about poverty in America, but rather more about the type and impression of poverty. It also speaks to the massive wealth in America....wealth that comes from tax dollars, being used for war rather then making the nation better for all it's people. Yes war is great for the top 5% but it is of no use to the rest of us.

Originally Posted by GeorgeForemanRules

You missed the point....more like ignored it.

I didn't miss, I was just addressing the part that sounded the dumbest.

Originally Posted by GeorgeForemanRules

The gap from rich to poor is huge in America and the myth of wealth is even bigger.

I'd rather live in a country with a large/poor gap where you have the most control over your destiny, than live in an "even" country you have much less control/options.

Originally Posted by GeorgeForemanRules

No one said being poor in America was as bad as Mexico or India, but it is worse than in most other industrilazed nations.

Most other "industrialized" nations (what you really mean is Western) are nothing like the US. Which leads to so many stupid comparisons.

Originally Posted by GeorgeForemanRules

Kurt Vonnegut's quote is not so much about poverty in America, but rather more about the type and impression of poverty. It also speaks to the massive wealth in America....wealth that comes from tax dollars, being used for war rather then making the nation better for all it's people. Yes war is great for the top 5% but it is of no use to the rest of us.

I can get behind some of that.

Originally Posted by DOMS

I didn't miss, I was just addressing the part that sounded the dumbest.
There was no part about that, you just made it up or assumed.



I'd rather live in a country with a large/poor gap where you have the most control over your destiny, than live in an "even" country you have much less control/options.
That is another topic but in short, America is not the most free nation in the world at all. That is propaganda.


Most other "industrialized" nations (what you really mean is Western) are nothing like the US. Which leads to so many stupid comparisons. I am not going to get into a terminology debate. If you can prove my post wrong then do so, changing the subject is a worthless thing to do.


I can get behind some of that.

All of it is true so I can see why you can get behind it.

The poor in the US aren't the same as the poor in, say, Zimbabwe. So that makes it ok?

DOMS, it sucks that you grew up that way. In this country that sort of thing shouldn't happen, such is the vast wealth we have here.

Originally Posted by Zaphod

The poor in the US aren't the same as the poor in, say, Zimbabwe. So that makes it ok?

DOMS, it sucks that you grew up that way. In this country that sort of thing shouldn't happen, such is the vast wealth we have here.

Wealth used for war and bombs.

Originally Posted by GeorgeForemanRules

Wealth used for war and bombs.

Lady liberty approves your comment

Originally Posted by GeorgeForemanRules

Wealth used for war and bombs.

I shudder to think how much of taxpayer money has gone to:

1. Military Industrial Complex Corporations.

2. Foreign governments to prop up their dictatorships.

3. Pentagon

4. Foreign wars (which includes #3).

Originally Posted by DOMS

Poor by what standard?

I grew up as poor as you can get in this country. My mom didn't even take government assistance. I would go without food for a day (sometimes a day and a half). It sucked, but I never starved so much that my life was in jeopardy. My life was never in jeopardy either. There were always police around to keep me safe.

In other countries, people die from starvation and have bands of thieves take their stuff.

One persons "poor" is another's decent standard of living.

God forbid every US family doesn't have a 60" TV, a Wii, 4 iPhones, 3 iPads, $200/mo satellite, 2 new SUVs and a 3000 sq/ft home. Boo Hoo!

In life there are winners and there are losers, contrary to popular belief.

we just had china lend us a couple of trillion,our deficit alone to them exceeds 11 trillion,our dollar is at its lowest,the euro is significantly higher for the past 5-6 yrs were by far the wealthiest nation,china and the saudies,are going to own this country..

Originally Posted by Imosted

i was reading somewhere that top 3% of people control 90% of the money in US

that along with about 85-90% of the stocks on Wall street, which is why it's is totally self-serving market.

also

The 300 richest people in the world have more combined wealth than the poorest 3.5B combined.

Originally Posted by GeorgeForemanRules

"
They will not acknowledge how in fact hard money is to come by, and, therefore, those who have no money blame and blame and blame themselves.

This inward blame has been a treasure for the rich and powerful, who have had to do less for their poor, publicly and privately, than any other ruling class since, say Napoleonic times."

What ivory tower socialist bullshit - the poor blame the rich like it's going out of style.

Originally Posted by troubador

What ivory tower socialist bullshit - the poor blame the rich like it's going out of style.

you are delusional. in the US losses to big businesses (mainly the self-serving Wall Street banks) are socialized while all of the gains are privatized and you call this capitalism?

It would not bother me one bit IF 10% of the people controlled 90% of the wealth. If you look at any organization, you have the 80/20 rule. 20% of the people actually do 80% of the actual work, while the other 80% get a free ride. Most any society should be expected to operate in much the same manner.

I hate to burst your bubble however, but that claim you pulled outta your ass is just not true. As much as many of you might want to believe that the USA is just as unfair and on par with a latin american banana republic, 10% doesn't control 90%. Even if it were the case, wtf would want to live in a socialist dictatorship like Cuba where the govt confiscates 100% of it and distributes the same 10% to the public.

The top-earning 5 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $159,619), however, still paid far more than the bottom 95 percent. The top 5 percent earned 34.7 percent of the nation's adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes.

The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

Originally Posted by Big Smoothy

I shudder to think how much of taxpayer money has gone to:

1. Military Industrial Complex Corporations.

2. Foreign governments to prop up their dictatorships.

3. Pentagon

4. Foreign wars (which includes #3).

just to give you an idea, US defense budget is 800 billion$
Iraq war cost over 3 trillion$
Us sends 2 billion$ to Egypt every year and 3 billion to Israel

Originally Posted by LAM

you are delusional. in the US losses to big businesses (mainly the self-serving Wall Street banks) are socialized while all of the gains are privatized and you call this capitalism?

You are countering an argument I didn't make. I'm not the delusional one.

Originally Posted by troubador

You are countering an argument I didn't make. I'm not the delusional one.

you stated that "the poor blame the rich like it's going out of style. "

a good majority of Wall Street millionaires and billionaires made their fortunes not with their money but with other peoples money (tax payers) and by betting against the success of US businesses...

Originally Posted by GearsMcGilf

It would not bother me one bit IF 10% of the people controlled 90% of the wealth. If you look at any organization, you have the 80/20 rule. 20% of the people actually do 80% of the actual work, while the other 80% get a free ride. Most any society should be expected to operate in much the same manner.

I hate to burst your bubble however, but that claim you pulled outta your ass is just not true. As much as many of you might want to believe that the USA is just as unfair and on par with a latin american banana republic, 10% doesn't control 90%. Even if it were the case, wtf would want to live in a socialist dictatorship like Cuba where the govt confiscates 100% of it and distributes the same 10% to the public.



The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

personally I only have issues with the self-serving Wall Street financial system and the for profit health care system in the US.

Originally Posted by LAM

you stated that "the poor blame the rich like it's going out of style. "

a good majority of Wall Street millionaires and billionaires made their fortunes not with their money but with other peoples money (tax payers) and by betting against the success of US businesses...

Is that your proof that the poor do not blame the rich? Or are you still arguing against a point I didn't make?

Originally Posted by GearsMcGilf

It would not bother me one bit IF 10% of the people controlled 90% of the wealth. If you look at any organization, you have the 80/20 rule. 20% of the people actually do 80% of the actual work, while the other 80% get a free ride. Most any society should be expected to operate in much the same manner.

I hate to burst your bubble however, but that claim you pulled outta your ass is just not true. As much as many of you might want to believe that the USA is just as unfair and on par with a latin american banana republic, 10% doesn't control 90%. Even if it were the case, wtf would want to live in a socialist dictatorship like Cuba where the govt confiscates 100% of it and distributes the same 10% to the public.



The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

The Pareto Principle (80/20) refers to 20% of the work a single person does as leading to 80% of the results, or 20% of clients leading to 80% of revenue. I've heard of it used to describe wealth distribution as well, but I've never heard of it in terms of worker output because you would never be able to analyze the data properly, each set of data would be in separate, non-comparable units. Sure, I would imagine that a business' revenue would weigh heavily based on the head of that company putting $5million in to it, but that is irrelevant if the 80% who do the shitty manufacturing work don't do it. In both scenarios the company would fail if the 20% or the 80% refused to do their part, so is it truly 20% of the workers do 80% of the work? Probably not, I may agree that companies typically overvalue what the execs are doing by giving that 20% of the company 80% of worker pay, but imo this is why most, if not all, American companies produce shit quality products.

I imagine that in each department you could compare and find the % / % that rings true, but then in each department you would have a separate 20/80 rule. And, I defy you to find any single person who is the Tiger Woods of manufacturing who makes more $$$ than the shittiest ad exec in an organization. A person's income is based of their perceived value, and within that there is a dollar sign placed on the type of work being done, regardless of how good the person is at it. This is why in a given company you will never find a janitor who makes more than someone in manufacturing, someone in manufacturing making more than someone in sales, someone in sales making more than an ad exec, and so on. I guarantee the people making the stuff make far less than the people selling it, independent of their contribution to the company.

Originally Posted by troubador

Is that your proof that the poor do not blame the rich? Or are you still arguing against a point I didn't make?

I could care less