The Middle Class in America Is Radically Shrinking. Here Are the Stats to Prove it

[SomeYoungGuy]

Quote from tradestrong:

Just imagine that you find a niche for a new business. All it requires is a rubberband and a quarter. No skills needed...only your time and your relatively small resources. Guess what will happen to your "monopoly"?

...it will be duplicated by the first "idiot" to come along...and fast...

Now imagine...you have a business which requires your ability to program software...invent new products...etc. Now how fast will you be duplicated?

...I bet it won't be duplicated by the same idiot that duplicated your rubber band business.

That's my point. It's impossible to protect a resource that your 90 year old grandmother could duplicate if she wanted. Our resources should be spent on developing technology and skills that are very hard to duplicate. That is what will keep America strong going forward. Who cares if China now knows how to bend steel. Our Apple, Microsoft, Intel, Cisco, Amazon, IBM, Google...etc...etc...etc is where our future is in America. And I'd say we're doing pretty well.

And yes...this does mean a class will be left behind. That's life.

The problem is that not everyone can be taught to be a techie at Apple, Microsoft, Intel, Cisco, Amazon, IBM, Google...etc...etc...etc, but everyone can be taught to bend steel.

The technology sector is great to have, but because only a small percentage of your population can do it, it's not enough to base an entire economy on.

 

[directionless]

Quote from tradestrong:

I actually have a much simpler answer why this is happening. Technology has driven society so far forward that in order to be a productive and useful asset in society (in other words, have a good job), you also need to be above average in intelligence and skills. The days of needing millions of laborers and other easy jobs are disappearing. Now you need to know how to program software, run highly technical equipment....etc.

I'd like to see a statistical distribution of income and intelligence. I bet they are highly correlated. I think what we are seeing is evolution at work to be honest with you. A shift to where your class in society is directly proportional to your innate intelligence.

This isn't a result of globalization. This is a result of evolution.

Except the people who have no skills can vote. This basically means the erosion of property rights, theft, and a progression to the point where the poor can no longer be subsidized through government as the wealthy leave or get killed.

And I don't fully agree with your assertion. You could be useful in this society as a ditch digger, but the poor didn't protect their labor monopoly and let illegals flood the system. As it currently stands, in big cities, you can't even get a job as a delivery boy because the job is almost always taken by someone who defies the law. Although, I suppose you could argue that because the poor are intellectually lacking, they didn't bother to protect their monopoly. In theory, they could still tariff out their competitors within this closed market.

They never should have given voting rights to non-land owning people. They don't own the means of production, so they will always seize it via the government to their own detriment.

 

[IanMacQuaide]

Quote from directionless:

Except the people who have no skills can vote. This basically means the erosion of property rights, theft, and a progression to the point where the poor can no longer be subsidized through government as the wealthy leave or get killed.

And I don't fully agree with your assertion. You could be useful in this society as a ditch digger, but the poor didn't protect their labor monopoly and let illegals flood the system. As it currently stands, in big cities, you can't even get a job as a delivery boy because the job is almost always taken by someone who defies the law. Although, I suppose you could argue that because the poor are intellectually lacking, they didn't bother to protect their monopoly. In theory, they could still tariff out their competitors within this closed market.

They never should have given voting rights to non-land owning people. They don't own the means of production, so they will always seize it via the government to their own detriment.

Exactly.
No skin in the game? = NO VOTE

 

[fkbsuhites]

Your appalling lack of cognitive ability tells me you're one of the poor class.

Yet another illiterate Joe-the-plumber type who thinks he'll win the lottery and buy a business in the future.

Quote from directionless:

Except the people who have no skills can vote. This basically means the erosion of property rights, theft, and a progression to the point where the poor can no longer be subsidized through government as the wealthy leave or get killed.

And I don't fully agree with your assertion. You could be useful in this society as a ditch digger, but the poor didn't protect their labor monopoly and let illegals flood the system. As it currently stands, in big cities, you can't even get a job as a delivery boy because the job is almost always taken by someone who defies the law. Although, I suppose you could argue that because the poor are intellectually lacking, they didn't bother to protect their monopoly. In theory, they could still tariff out their competitors within this closed market.

They never should have given voting rights to non-land owning people. They don't own the means of production, so they will always seize it via the government to their own detriment.

 

[Mav88]

83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people.

I'm calling bullshit on that one, given all the pension fund ownership, that 50% of households owned stock in 2000, and that mutual funds are owned by more than 1% of folks.

This very liberal piece says that the top 20% own 93% of financial assets, which seems about right. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

If you can't get the simple facts accurate, then the rest of what is said is manure.

 

[failed_trad3r]

Quote from SomeYoungGuy:

The problem is that not everyone can be taught to be a techie at Apple, Microsoft, Intel, Cisco, Amazon, IBM, Google...etc...etc...etc, but everyone can be taught to bend steel.

The technology sector is great to have, but because only a small percentage of your population can do it, it's not enough to base an entire economy on.

\

Plus IT technology can easily be copied. Only copyright laws protect against copying.

 

[failed_trad3r]

Quote from directionless:

Except the people who have no skills can vote. This basically means the erosion of property rights, theft, and a progression to the point where the poor can no longer be subsidized through government as the wealthy leave or get killed.

And I don't fully agree with your assertion. You could be useful in this society as a ditch digger, but the poor didn't protect their labor monopoly and let illegals flood the system. As it currently stands, in big cities, you can't even get a job as a delivery boy because the job is almost always taken by someone who defies the law. Although, I suppose you could argue that because the poor are intellectually lacking, they didn't bother to protect their monopoly. In theory, they could still tariff out their competitors within this closed market.

They never should have given voting rights to non-land owning people. They don't own the means of production, so they will always seize it via the government to their own detriment.

Ah, you're like one of those old aristocrats. Not born in a good family, then your just one of the plebs. The joke here is that you are probably one of the plebs, condemning plebs.