There's more productivity and wealth per capita to share now than there was in those days, and probably in our entire history, so sales and service volumes are clearly still sufficient to support a broad middle class, but for patterns of ownership. The difference from then and now is unionism, which really got traction and grew after the GD. The rich don't voluntarily share the wealth they accumulate thanks to owning and commanding capital and labor (increasingly by the lottery of birth), it has to be taken by force. Probably been that way since the big ape tried to keep the troop's other males from "his" fruit tree--gotta gang up on him. : )
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
NBC News/Wall Street Journal Survey has Sanders Besting Trump, Rubio.
- Thread starter piezoe
- Start date
There's more productivity and wealth per capita to share now than there was in those days, and probably in our entire history, so sales and service volumes are clearly still sufficient to support a broad middle class, but for patterns of ownership. The difference from then and now is unionism, which really got traction and grew after the GD. The rich don't voluntarily share the wealth they accumulate thanks to owning and commanding capital and labor (increasingly by the lottery of birth), it has to be taken by force. Probably been that way since the big ape tried to keep the troop's other males from "his" fruit tree--gotta gang up on him. : )
This is really a silly rant Ricter. "The rich don't voluntarily share their wealth." I would guess that people comprising the top 5% of annual income make more than 80% of charitable contributions. "....wealth......... has to be taken by force." Please spare us the communist propaganda.
A vast majority of the productive assets in this country are not controlled by the rich. They are under ownership of pension funds, and mutual funds, representing the savings and retirement accounts of perhaps 150,000,000 Americans. There still is a middle class, and a thriving middle class by ANY historic standard. 1/2 the households in the US earn more than $53,000. A measly sum for some but enough to provide for an existence free of want.
The middle class controls several trillion in savings. But through their investment managers they put it largely in the stock and bond markets, where it serves to enrich the executives. Maybe they should try a different investment model or demand different accountability. If the middle class truly organized, they could force new compensation schemes at the top 3000 companies. They could elect boards that would limit CEO compensation to something far less than the 350-1 ratio of CEO/employee. They could fund lobbyists and create new laws and change old ones. But they don't. Why they don't, I can't answer. The fact is they are not exercising the power potential they have to make true structural reforms that would serve their interests. Yammering about "The Man" and taking a page out of Fidel Castro's playbook is just an impotent attempt at rabble rousing.
There's more productivity and wealth per capita to share now than there was in those days, and probably in our entire history, so sales and service volumes are clearly still sufficient to support a broad middle class, but for patterns of ownership. The difference from then and now is unionism, which really got traction and grew after the GD. The rich don't voluntarily share the wealth they accumulate thanks to owning and commanding capital and labor (increasingly by the lottery of birth), it has to be taken by force. Probably been that way since the big ape tried to keep the troop's other males from "his" fruit tree--gotta gang up on him. : )
You know that income inequality and poverty was much worse in America in the age of the railroad barons and monopolists than it is today, eh?
Sure do. Also a very politically tumultuous time.You know that income inequality and poverty was much worse in America in the age of the railroad barons and monopolists than it is today, eh?
Well then I guess we can all just quit complaining about high taxes, entitlements, and over regulation. Life's never been better.This is really a silly rant Ricter. "The rich don't voluntarily share their wealth." I would guess that people comprising the top 5% of annual income make more than 80% of charitable contributions. "....wealth......... has to be taken by force." Please spare us the communist propaganda.
A vast majority of the productive assets in this country are not controlled by the rich. They are under ownership of pension funds, and mutual funds, representing the savings and retirement accounts of perhaps 150,000,000 Americans. There still is a middle class, and a thriving middle class by ANY historic standard. 1/2 the households in the US earn more than $53,000. A measly sum for some but enough to provide for an existence free of want.
[QUOTE="globuli, .
A vast majority of the productive assets in this country are not controlled by the rich. They are under ownership of pension funds, and mutual funds, representing the savings and retirement accounts of perhaps 150,000,000 Americans.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why when the financial crisis happen in the USA of from 2007 to 2010 do many many middle class people lose so much from the 401K and other retirements accounts? Why do the very rich not lose in that time?
A vast majority of the productive assets in this country are not controlled by the rich. They are under ownership of pension funds, and mutual funds, representing the savings and retirement accounts of perhaps 150,000,000 Americans.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why when the financial crisis happen in the USA of from 2007 to 2010 do many many middle class people lose so much from the 401K and other retirements accounts? Why do the very rich not lose in that time?
Well that would have been due to the stock market crash, which would have affected anyone with stock holdings, rich, not rich alike.
A lot of people lost money and lost jobs, some very good high paying jobs. In 2008, in the town where I resided ( suburb of NYC, a town with a median household income of about $140,000)
the parking lots at the train station (Metro north line) which had always been at full capacity had in a matter of months after Lehman folded been reduced to about 3/4 capacity. People lost their jobs, people who had been earning very good money.
A lot of people lost money and lost jobs, some very good high paying jobs. In 2008, in the town where I resided ( suburb of NYC, a town with a median household income of about $140,000)
the parking lots at the train station (Metro north line) which had always been at full capacity had in a matter of months after Lehman folded been reduced to about 3/4 capacity. People lost their jobs, people who had been earning very good money.