[CA renter]

[quote=livinincali][quote=harvey][quote=livinincali] Would that have impacted some people in the middle and upper middle class. Yeah it would, but it would have hit those at the top harder than those in the middle.[/quote]

[quote]You’re probably happy that you 401K more than doubled from some hypothetical 100K to 250K but Bill Gates went from 30 billion to over 75 billion at the same time.[/quote]

Your second point completely refutes the first.

When Bill Gates only has “only” $30 billion, he still has incredible power, more net worth than literally millions of people combined, and tremendous opportunity to make more. He can take all sorts of risks, make all sorts of investments (and has access to the choice ones.)

When someone else who is Bill Gate’s age only has $100K, they are essentially trapped, unable to do anything but earn wages to get by and have almost no realistic opportunity to grow their wealth. If they have $250K, they may at least have a few more options.

There are reasons that “the rich get richer.” Making everybody poorer doesn’t change those reasons, it actually makes them more pronounced.

And of course there’s the fact that most of the very wealthy made their wealth long before any bailouts. Sorry, bailouts have nothing to do with the wealth gap. If anything they probably diminished it.[/quote]

Just do the math. If you the average paycheck to paycheck american with a net worth of $20K of saving who cares what happens to the stock market. Say the top 10% have a net worth of $1 million with 50% of that in stocks. So the wealth gap is a ratio of 50/1 or $980K. Say the stock market gets cut by 50%. Now the wealth gap is 750/20 = 37.5/1 or $730K. The wealth gap just shrunk right.

Or just look at this chart. Notice the time frames when wealth inequality shrunk a lot. What happened during those times?

[/quote]

Livinincali is absolutely correct. Let’s not forget that the bailouts consist of far, far more than TARP or any other “official” bailout programs. Keeping interest rates at/below zero and QE (we’ve effectively had negative interest rates for a large part of the post-recession period, and money has lost purchasing power over these same years) have bailed out asset holders at the expense of people who live on a fixed income, which includes workers. Take into consideration that many working people are earning the same or less — nominally — than they were in 2008/2009, and it’s easy to see how they’ve been losing while the rich have been gaining. They are more economically vulnerable than they were prior to the recession, too, as their jobs are often temporary (more contractors, more temps, and more 1099ers, etc.), and benefits have been reduced in many cases.

If you look at the history of wealth/income gaps and tax policies, you’ll see that low tax rates for the wealthy (less steeply progressive rates and/or lower rates on unearned income) tend to occur just before, and during, periods of growing wealth/income disparities. The times when wealth/income inequality peaks is usually right before a major recession. Whether it’s causative is up for debate, but I certainly believe there is a relationship there.

Money flows from the bottom up. It always has, and always will. If a significant enough portion of the income from the top flows back toward the bottom — from where it will flow back up — then money velocity is increased. If money is hoarded at the top, money velocity will decrease. Since consumption makes up such a large percentage of our economy, it’s imperative that we put as much money as possible into the greatest number of hands where it will continue to circulate through the economy.

Money sitting at the top often doesn’t benefit the economy, especially if it is used for speculation (as opposed to real investing, where productive capacity is increased) or if it’s simply being hoarded (though savings are made available for businesses to borrow and grow productive capacity, which is generally good for the economy). Speculation is zero-sum, and so much of today’s wealth is being used for speculation instead of growing the economy or consumption which drives economic stability/growth as demand is maintained or is increased.

[CA renter]

[quote=AN]flyer, I understand your concern regarding wealth gap with regards to societal viewpoint. However, I think we’re far from the breaking point, where it would start to result in revolution. I think as long as the middle 3 quintile are employed and have a decent life, things will continue to chug along.

With that said, what would be your proposal to close the gap (meaningfully)? The only solution that I think would work is a wealth tax. I don’t think raising the minimum wage will do it, since it will just put more money into the system and the rich will also benefit from additional money in the system as well. It might end up negatively affect the 2nd & 3rd quintile more than the top 5% and the 4th quintile.[/quote]

1.) Restrict the ratio of highest-paid to lowest-paid people who work for or own a particular corporation (including ALL types of compensation to any individual). If they want the benefits of incorporation (basically spreading the risks), then they should have to pay for those benefits by spreading the rewards, as well.

2.) Tax ALL income at the same, steeply progressive rates.

3.) Eliminate the ability to step-up the cost basis of assets for heirs of large estates. Adjust the cost basis by some sort of inflation factor instead in order to avoid being taxed on “inflation.”

4.) Universal healthcare for all U.S. citizens. Medical costs are one of the leading causes of bankruptcy. Unfortunately, if someone is stricken with a devastating illness, they are often unable to work (and maintain affordable insurance) at the very same time that they need this insurance. We pay the highest medical costs for some of the worst outcomes, respectively. Americans desperately need to wake up and learn more about the different healthcare systems and their outcomes.

5.) Lift the cap on income subject to SS taxes, increase SS contributions from both employees and employers, and increase the benefits with the possibility of adjusting the benefits based on needs.

6.) Consider imposing tariffs on “U.S. companies” (and foreign companies?) that do most of the manufacturing overseas if they want to sell goods in the U.S. These costs should offset any differences in labor and environmental standards between the two countries.

If the company isn’t paying for all of the legal, physical, social, and other infrastructure provided by our government (because they are doing most of their work overseas), they should have to buy the right to be a U.S. company with all of the protections and benefits that this affords them.

Just these steps alone would greatly reduce the income and wealth gaps, while still allowing people the ability to save for retirement and enjoy a decent quality of life.

[CA renter]

Doesn’t that seem silly, though? That’s the best guarantee of maximum return of the lender’s money in the event of a default, no?

[CA renter]

[quote=HLS]

Just because someone has 50% down, zero debt, an 800 credit score and $1 million dollars in the bank, it doesn’t mean that they can qualify for a conventional loan.
In many cases it’s easier for someone with 3% down, other debt, no cash other than down payment and a much lower credit score to qualify.
………It’s simply idiotic.[/quote]

Wow, that really is idiotic. I didn’t realize that these things (especially large down payment) don’t necessarily make it easier to qualify for a loan. If I were the lender, down payment would be the #1 qualifying factor, followed by debt/income ratios, and then FICO scores.

[CA renter]

[quote=flyer]Personally, I think the “wealth gap” statistics are pretty much self-explanatory–concerning the ever-widening “Gap Between the Middle Class and the Rich.”

Differing levels of wealth directly translate into many “quality of life” differences between classes (for lack of a better term)–such as–less disposable income, lesser funds for housing, lesser funds for retirement, lesser funds for heirs (if you so choose).

I’m sure there are more examples, but those are the most significant, life-changing issues in my opinion, and, most likely, why it is referred to as the “wealth gap.”[/quote]

Agreed. And note that the things you’ve listed — housing, retirement, and inheritance — are basically types of investments (more disposable income = more income to invest), and that unearned income is taxed at a lower rate than earned income, particularly for high income earners. In other words, the different tax treatment of earned vs. unearned income makes the wealth gap even greater, and this difference grows over time.

Of course, there are multiple reasons for the wealth gap (greater — and growing — political power of those at the top of the economic pyramid; mechanization; globalization; etc.) , just pointing out that our tax policies make the problem even worse. It’s like pouring fuel on the fire.

[CA renter]

Again, I do not know whether or not these families were included in any kind of database. They were both complaining about the total lack of attention, from both the medical community and the government, given to their families and others like them. They were stonewalled by almost everyone they came into contact with. Their pediatricians didn’t just refuse to treat the children for their issues, they refused to do any research into why these children reacted they way they did within 24 hours of being vaccinated, and they refused to have ANY communications with the parents when the parents brought up their concerns; the same goes for any government agencies (including politicians, though I believe they did have one who was trying to be somewhat helpful) they had contacted for help.

[CA renter]

[quote=harvey][quote=CA renter]There is too much information in her video to type in just a few lines here.[/quote]

I asked for a examples, a few sentences, far less than you actually typed.

Healthcare is not simply more expensive today, it is very different today. By the most basic metric, life expectancy, healthcare is significantly better.

If healthcare is worse for the middle class, then why is everybody living longer?

Real estate costs more because there are more people and the same amount of land. Why is it so hard to understand that?

I’m aware of the “wealth gap” statistics, but don’t see how that translates into the claim that the middle class is worse off than they were forty years ago.

If the middle class is really so much worse off, there should be an abundance of examples of things that are no longer accessible to them. And yet you cannot provide even a few examples to support your claim.[/quote]

Stop being lazy and watch the video.

FYI, the biggest improvements in life expectancy happened at the younger end of the age range over 50 years ago with improvements in sanitation, hygiene, medically supervised pregnancy and childbirth (including more births in hospitals), vaccines, antibiotics, and safer workplaces (thanks to unions and govt regulations). Over the past ~40-65 years, we have only gained a few years of life expectancy for people at age 65 (somewhere between approximately 2 and 7.5 years, depending on which research you look at, the timeframe, and gender differences). Contrary to popular myth, we are not living that much longer than we were 40-65 years ago.

—–

[bold is mine -CAR]

Gains
since the 1980s were 6 years in Japan and 5 years in France
and Italy, as opposed to 3 years in the Netherlands and 2
years in the United States and Denmark.

TodaysResearchAging22-pdf

———-

[OECD countries, not just the U.S. -CAR]

There are no population-based data to allow a direct estimate of the contributions of medical care to life extension or to the quality of life. In the absence of such data, my colleagues and I have created inventories of the outcome benefits of the preventive or curative care for individual conditions. Based on such an inventory of established life extending outcomes of preventive and curative services for individual conditions, I estimate that about half of the 7½ years of increased life expectancy since 1950 can be attributed to medical care. I credit an even larger number of years of relief, or partial relief, of poor quality of life to medical care. The data on which the estimates are based are often incomplete, and the estimates are approximations. They are more than speculative and less than precise.

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/6/1260.long

——————–

[The U.S. is lagging other developed nations. -CAR]

Life expectancy has improved steadily and substantially in most high-income countries over the last century. In recent decades, however, the United States, Denmark, and the Netherlands have seen gains in life expectancy stagnate (NRC 2010: Glei, Meslé, and Vallin). U.S. life expectancy has been rising at a slower pace than other high-income countries over the last 25 years, particularly for women.
Denmark experienced virtually no growth in life expectancy from 1980 to 1995. The Netherlands experienced stagnation in the rate of growth in life expectancy starting in the early 1980s and continuing until 2002. While increases
in life expectancy in Denmark and the Netherlands have resumed, the growth rate of U.S. life expectancy remains exceptionally slow.

TodaysResearchAging22-pdf

——————-

Again, if you want to compare the quality of medical care today to that of 40+ years ago, you have to look at all aspects of medical care, and that includes the HUGE burden that has been shifted from hospitals and medical professionals to family members and other caretakers.

[CA renter]

[quote=zk]And perhaps your misunderstanding of how this works is also partly responsible for your suspicion of a cover up. If you think that each new case needs to be investigated in order to understand what’s happening, then you’d expect the government to be very interested in each new case. The reason they’re not as interested as you’d like isn’t because of a cover up. It’s because the science has already been done. Many times. At some point, you’re just wasting your time and money investigating something that’s already been proven incorrect. The government doesn’t want to hear about it if you suspect that you were cured by bloodletting, either. That’s not because of a cover up. It’s because the science has been done already.[/quote]

This was back in the late 90s/early 2000s when this was all pretty new and few studies had been done. It’s not just that the doctors refused to treat the patients, it’s that they didn’t seem the least bit interested in finding out what happened. Once the parents suggested a link between the vaccine and autism, the doctor refused to see that family anymore. Nobody followed up, no studies were done on their child, nothing. No government agencies (CDC, Dept. of Health and Human and Human Services, etc.) were interested in hearing about their case — these doctors and health agencies did not want to find out if there was a link at all. Yes, that sounds like it could certainly be a coverup.

If I were in the medical field and began hearing stories of children becoming extremely autistic within 24 hours of a vaccine, I would start working immediately on trying to find out what was going on. It took a few years of thousands of parents making an uproar to get anyone to take notice and begin doing any real studies.

Just to be clear, the only reason I even posted on this thread was because a number of posters seemed baffled as to why parents who are every bit as educated, intelligent, and wealthy as they are (or better…and this group includes a number of doctors and nurses, too, especially in the late 90s and early 2000s) would choose not to vaccinate their kids. I was just sharing a perspective that others apparently didn’t know about so that they could better understand it. Not saying that anyone has to agree with it, but hope that people can better understand other people’s perspectives and decisions.

[CA renter]

[quote=harvey][quote=joec]That said, I had to answer and say college costs in the 70s were more affordable than now. Back then, you could make a decent living even without a college degree. Good luck with that now for most folks. Ordinary folks could go to college if they wanted to and it was cheap.[/quote]

College is more expensive, but not as much as many people claim. In fact, it’s not much:

[quote]Another item is healthcare. Back in the 70s, most people had much cheaper healthcare. [/quote]

This is common flawed comparison. Do you think healthcare in the 70s was the same as it is today? Your health insurance today insures you against a lot more than it did in the 70s. Treatments for the most common killers, cardiovascular conditions and cancer, were not nearly as effective as they are today. It’s just not an apples-to-apples comparison. Sure, you paid less for total healthcare coverage. You got a lot less also.

Bottom line is the world has improved in big ways in the past four decades, and the American Middle class is enjoying the benefits.[/quote]

First, watch the video. She goes into detail about the differences. There is too much information in her video to type in just a few lines here. It’s incredibly important that you watch it because it’s clear that you don’t understand why people are making these claims.

You claim that medical treatment is inferior today, but many people would disabuse you of that notion. Forty years ago, people were treated and rehabilitated in hospitals with trained staff. Today, the cost of rehabilitation has been shifted to the patients’ families (Ms. Warren goes into this, too). People are being sent home with drainage tubes, open incisions that need to be dressed, etc. with only a piece of paper explaining how to care for them (and one can only hope to have a caring, dedicated caretaker with some sort of medical knowledge at home who has nothing else to do). Talk to people who were treated then and now and see what they have to say about your supposed “superior” medical care. Even in cancer treatment, many of the major treatments are the same drugs that were being used decades ago! While there have been some improvements in certain aspects of healthcare, other areas have seen a significant decline in care.

But one of the biggest cost increases is related to housing. While the housing costs in your home state might be lower today (and I’m just taking your word on this), the areas where most of the U.S. population lives is MUCH more expensive than it was 30-40+ years ago. To make matters worse, many jobs now pay the same or less *nominally* than they did ~30 years ago. With this reduced income, people are expected to pay much higher costs for housing, healthcare, education, etc.

You need to watch Elizabeth Warren’s video. No, you do not know more than she does…not even close.

And flyer is absolutely correct about the wealth gap, too. It plays a part in the income gap as well, since unearned income is taxed at a lower rate than earned income, more money can be amassed more quickly with which the wealthy can make ever more income.

[CA renter]

[quote=njtosd]
Which reminds me of one other question that I had for CARenter. Is there a reliable database somewhere showing these “thousands” of children who have been harmed? Do they appear on the VAERS database? If so, what is the name of the symptom that they developed following their vaccination? If they are not in the database, are there thousands of letters from the CDC explaining why they were excluded, or even confirming that they were excluded?[/quote]

I mention the thousands because back in the 90s when I was teaching, this was becoming a pretty big issue in the education field. Many articles were being written about these families. To the best of my limited knowledge, there were no major studies or databases of these patients at that time. Parents were complaining about the lack of attention/investment/research being done to find out why so many kids were experiencing such dramatic changes in such a short time after being vaccinated.

I met the two families I had mentioned in the early-mid 2000s, and they were still frustrated with the lack of attention being paid by the medical establishment and the government. In all three cases (in two families), the diagnosis was autism, with two being severely autistic and one with a mild-moderate form. I have no idea if they’ve been included in that VAERS database, but don’t believe they were included in any database at that time.

[CA renter]

[quote=zk][quote=CA renter]
I tend to not make emotional decisions, especially when it comes to important issues in life. But I’d be an idiot if I were to ignore cases of real people who’ve experienced their children developing severe autism within 24 hours of getting vaccinated.
[/quote]
You would be an idiot, unless you had some reason to believe that the vaccines weren’t causing the autism. Such as a number of studies proving that they didn’t.
[quote=CA renter]

Call it whatever you want, but I would argue that it’s an emotional thinker who ignores what they see with their own eyes and instead listens to the “offical message” from the government.
[/quote]
The government? “Official message?” I’m not listening to the government. I’m listening to scientific studies.
[quote=CA renter]

The FACT (not an emotional argument) is that many families have seen their children become completely closed off, autistic, even catatonic, immediately after being vaccinated. You can talk about coincidences all day long… [/quote]
If 4 million people have incident A happen to them during their second year of life, and if ten thousand people have incident B happen to them during that same year, there are going to be some that have incident A and B on the same day. And even more that happen within a day or two. I don’t know if you call that a coincidence or not, but it’s a fact.

[quote=CA renter]

… but it’s this sort of evidence that leads us to understand the world around us. More research is necessary.
[/quote]
Those two sentences really don’t make sense when taken together. First, you say that this anecdotal evidence is how we understand the world. Then you say “more research is necessary.” What kind of research are you talking about? The kind that’s already been done, but more? So, which is it? Anecdotal evidence is what counts, or more scientific studies?
[quote=CA renter]

And I’m not suggesting that vaccines necessarily cause autism, just that we don’t know for a fact that they don’t. [/quote]
And what would it take to know “for a fact” that they don’t?
[quote=CA renter]

Let’s not forget that this government/govt-approved data is from the same government who said that the air was safe to breathe after 9/11:
[/quote]
Where are you getting “government-approved” from?
[quote=CA renter]

But let’s also note that the most emotional thinkers are the ones who consistently attack those who hold opposing viewpoints, rather than staying on topic and addressing the issues one by one.
[/quote]
I’ve done nothing but address issues one by one.

[quote=CA renter]

Read through this thread again and see who is most inclined to post emotional attacks against others (including the use of words like “idiot” or calling people “irrational”) and see if that high IQ of yours is blinding you to your own weaknesses.[/quote]
The only people I called idiots were Rand Paul and some women I met in Mensa a few decades ago. And I didn’t call you irrational. I said you were saying irrational things. If I say you’re saying irrational things, and I can point to those things, that’s not a personal attack.[/quote]

It’s been years since I’ve talked to those families, but at the time, nobody was trying to do tests to see why their children reacted to the vaccines the way they did. As a matter of fact, they were told that the vaccines couldn’t cause those problems, and were pretty much shut down by doctors and government officials when they tried to report it. With one family of the two that we’ve known, their pediatrician refused to treat their children after that (don’t remember specifics about the other, but don’t believe they got much assistance from the medical community or the related government agencies, either). That smells an awful lot like a coverup.

Until those particular patients are studied (all of the patients that had that a “coincidental” reaction within ~24 hours of being vaccinated), then we don’t know nearly as much about these vaccines and the possible reactions to them as you’d like to think we do.

[CA renter]

[quote=harvey]Some people simply cannot think rationally and objectively. They may actually be “smart” by some measures, but they are not capable of using their intelligence in a systematic way to work toward objective conclusions.

And they don’t get that they don’t get it, so really a lost cause.

zk, you’re making a noble effort here with a sound and well-articulated argument. But you just cannot overcome Dunning-Kruger.[/quote]

There you go, projecting again. Your posts are always so ironic.

You’ve been proven wrong over and over and over again, and not just by me; yet you keep on writing these silly, juvenile posts, making an even bigger ass of yourself. You like to think that you’re smart, but your posts prove otherwise. You are the guiltiest poster on this site when it comes to twisting other people’s words and intentionally editing other people’s posts when you “quote” them (and I’m not just talking about using bold or italics) and you’re the guiltiest of using ad hominem attacks instead of intelligently engaging in debates. You consistently misread what others have posted, making painfully obvious your lack of reading comprehension skills, yet you try to claim that you have a superior intellect. You truly are funny.

If you have something useful to bring to the discussion, have at it. Otherwise, go back to your hole, troll.

[CA renter]

[quote=harvey][quote=CA renter]Back in 1973, a single-earner family of four, with the single earner working in construction/plumbing/electrical/auto mechanics could live in a safe, clean neighborhood in a SFH in LA. They could own two affordable cars, too. Today, even a two-income family in those same industries, or something similar, would not be able to live in that same house or neighborhood[/quote]

It is worthless to use a single data point of local real estate values as proof of aggregate “purchasing power” arguments. The only thing your “statistic” says is that real estate was cheaper in certain neighborhoods in LA in 1973. That change is influenced far more by demographics than the general economy. Real estate costs more in LA because there are far more people in these areas. Same supply, more demand. There are plenty of cities where real estate is far cheaper today than it was in 1973. The town I grew up in is one of them.

Lots of people live in nice homes today on single incomes – most of the families on my street, most of my relatives. My neighbor, a plumber, has three cars (and any car you buy today is far better than any car that was even available in 1973.)

The question still stands: Other than manly jumpsuits, what is it that people cannot afford today?[/quote]

Did you watch the video where Elizabeth Warren goes into detail about this?

[CA renter]

[quote=zk][quote=CA renter]Hmmmm, sounds a bit like a personal attack…which you know never helps your side in an argument.

[/quote]

A personal attack? I’ve gone out of my way not to make personal attacks against you in this thread. Every time I’ve typed something that could’ve been construed as mean or personal I’ve erased it and replaced with something else.

You keep stating your same argument (“if you’d seen this, you’d feel different, too”). I keep bringing logic, reason, and science to the table, and you keep ignoring all of that.

Your IQ is irrelevant. I joined Mensa back in the ’80s, because I like smart women and I thought I might meet some. I did meet some, but I also met some… how do I say… idiots. My IQ is in the 99th, percentile, also. You know why I never mention that? Because it’s basically meaningless (which I hadn’t figured out yet in the ’80s). IQ measures a narrow area of brain function, an area that has little to do with actually living life. Among the countless important things that IQ doesn’t measure is one’s ability to see one’s own flaws and shortcomings. It doesn’t measure one’s ability to see one’s own biases and blindnesses. This is where it appears to me that you are falling short on this thread. Your emotion is clearly getting in the way of you seeing a clear picture.

Letting emotion get in the way of logic is extremely common. It’s the way we’re wired. And to restate, it takes all kinds. You seem like a warm, caring person. Always generous with praise. But you do let your emotions cloud your thinking sometimes, this thread being a prime example. You can take that as a personal attack if you want. But I don’t know what else would explain the irrational things you’re saying.[/quote]

I tend to not make emotional decisions, especially when it comes to important issues in life. But I’d be an idiot if I were to ignore cases of real people who’ve experienced their children developing severe autism within 24 hours of getting vaccinated. Call it whatever you want, but I would argue that it’s an emotional thinker who ignores what they see with their own eyes and instead listens to the “offical message” from the government.

The FACT (not an emotional argument) is that many families have seen their children become completely closed off, autistic, even catatonic, immediately after being vaccinated. You can talk about coincidences all day long, but it’s this sort of evidence that leads us to understand the world around us. More research is necessary.

And I’m not suggesting that vaccines necessarily cause autism, just that we don’t know for a fact that they don’t.

Let’s not forget that this government/govt-approved data is from the same government who said that the air was safe to breathe after 9/11:

It’s the same government that spread Agent Orange all over our troops and countless innocent people in Vietnam, all the while declaring that it was “safe”:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/07/22/197316/makers-of-agent-orange-followed.html

————–

But let’s also note that the most emotional thinkers are the ones who consistently attack those who hold opposing viewpoints, rather than staying on topic and addressing the issues one by one. Read through this thread again and see who is most inclined to post emotional attacks against others (including the use of words like “idiot” or calling people “irrational”) and see if that high IQ of yours is blinding you to your own weaknesses.

[CA renter]

[quote=harvey]These “purchasing power” statistics are mildly interesting but mostly academic. The middle class really had more purchasing power in 1973?

Let’s ask the commonsense question:

What are examples of things that ordinary folk were buying in 1973 that they cannot afford today?[/quote]

Most definitely. Back in 1973, a single-earner family of four, with the single earner working in construction/plumbing/electrical/auto mechanics could live in a safe, clean neighborhood in a SFH in LA. They could own two affordable cars, too. Today, even a two-income family in those same industries, or something similar, would not be able to live in that same house or neighborhood.

Watch Elizabeth Warren’s lecture about the collapse of the American middle class:

[Author]

Posts