So how do we fix the wealth disparity in th US (1 Viewer)

[IC FBGCav]

So let's problem solve instead of blame.  My favorite economist said this.  

Investors look of a safe space.   Before the 2008 crash the investors went to oil.  

So next crash let's offer T-bills.  Never been a T-Bill Sale that hasn't sold out and safest investment in the world.  We pay, let's just say 2%.  

US offers 4 Trillion and they get bought.  Then US invests that money everywhere.  Averaging a 6% return over 30 years in theory.  

Sounds like a better plan.  

 

[wikkidpissah]

Don't think it's achievable pre-crash, but the answer lies in reducing the size of our private & public institutions.

Equilibriums.

Remember that word.

Equilibriums. 

Economics should have been on this 30+ years ago. When the Reagan administration was talking its tax cuts, saying that rates above a certain level disincentivize wealth, innovation & progress, I expected them to come out with numbers showing the tipping point on that phenomenon. None came. When arbitraging resulted in manufacturing plants which supported entire towns being closed because they couldnt hope to make more than 5 cents on a dollar (but would neither make less), i thought we'd have a white paper on economic impact of plant closings. There wasn't. Adam Smith was as adamant about maintaining unrestrained markets only to the point that they began to impact the spending power of the customer base as he was about his more-cited theories, but the modern numbers on those ratios are no more forthcoming than they are heeded.

That's because economics is no longer a science at the service of society. It's a lubricant for the machines of greed.

Fifty years ago, there were ten+, maybe hundreds of times the number of military contractors, manufacturers, media outlets, tech firms than there are now. The only reason for that is the govt stopped controlling the size of companies and then corporations got big enough to control first the flow of money, then the nature of capital & government. Now that cant be stopped. They are close to stopping themselves because the tricks of finance can only cover so many of the failures of production. We will fail. In your lifetime, we will fail.

Equiibriums.

Jim Lovell maintained Apollo 13 on the right trajectory for re-entry by keeping Earth in the window of his craft. That's what you do - use the science to know the range in which to work and do not work outside it. Keeping the range as wide as possible will allow for the most possible innovations and highest level of opportunities. Keeping the size of corporate entities and governmental institutions to a size that cannot dominate outside their domain deters both from altering the course & flow of the Money River. There are also equilibriums for when personal liberty becomes license and we should observe those limits just as strictly. We will fail soon. Let's start planning to do better next time.

 

[Stealthycat]

are you asking how its possible to keep from having a low class, middle class and upper class with the percentages the way they currently are ?

 

[Sinn Fein]

are you asking how its possible to keep from having a low class, middle class and upper class with the percentages the way they currently are ?

I suspect it is a question about how we re-value national resources.

For a while, we valued labor on a similar level to ownership or raw materials.  Over the last 30 years, we have placed greater value (thus higher rewards) on ownership.  That has resulted in a increasing gap between labor and owners.  In the long-run, that is not good, as the gap will reach a point where labor revolts.

So, the question is, how to we re-evalute the worth of labor vis-a-vis ownership.  If we make labor more valuable, then ownership becomes less valuable - until you reach a reasonable equilibrium (note, this does not mean that the value of ownership is equal to labor - but it becomes one where the risks/rewards for both are in-line with each other.  You would expect ownership to carry more risks, thus be entitled to higher rewards - but not at the current levels.) 

 

[The General]

A tax cut that gave 20% to the top 1% probably wasn't a good start.

 

[KarmaPolice]

A tax cut that gave 20% to the top 1% probably wasn't a good start.

But, but.....THIS time all that money will trickle down to us poor folk! 

 

[urbanhack]

I thought Trump already solved this, no?

 

[The Commish]

Our tax code and what it does has to be blown up and we start over not allowing the current state to ever happen again.

 

[Sinn Fein]

But, but.....THIS time all that money will trickle down to us poor folk! 

No.  You are thinking of Pee.  The Pee tape is real, and it trickles down on all of us.

 

[Stealthycat]

I suspect it is a question about how we re-value national resources.

For a while, we valued labor on a similar level to ownership or raw materials.  Over the last 30 years, we have placed greater value (thus higher rewards) on ownership.  That has resulted in a increasing gap between labor and owners.  In the long-run, that is not good, as the gap will reach a point where labor revolts.

So, the question is, how to we re-evalute the worth of labor vis-a-vis ownership.  If we make labor more valuable, then ownership becomes less valuable - until you reach a reasonable equilibrium (note, this does not mean that the value of ownership is equal to labor - but it becomes one where the risks/rewards for both are in-line with each other.  You would expect ownership to carry more risks, thus be entitled to higher rewards - but not at the current levels.) 

do you think the current system is off then ?

I don't ... .in the USA, unlike many places in the world, you can go from nothing to a multi-millionaire by the time your'e 30 years old. You an do it in sports, with an invention, with hard work, opening a business, etc etc.  That's unique for most countries - there, you're born poor, you're poor and will always be.

Owning something, building it, .... its not something most of us do and it should carry the rewards that's far and above what myself as a general laborer receives. I can't disagree that CEO's are overpaid though, it seems preposterous to have a 20 or 40 million dollar a year CEO and companies still do it.

If you make labor more valuable ie pay more, that will just raise the cost of goods and services - and the poor remain poor.

If I could change one thing - it'd be education. Only with education can change happen to "poor" communities. Lets be honest, some people are not meant to do high tech and high skill jobs, they will forever be low wage earners and middle wager earners. That's ok too - a hard honest day's worth is valuable, but its still exactly what it is and nothing more. I think there are problems with mass Fed/State general education .... revamp it all, and done right I think the changes would impact the low class people in right ways and changes would be beneficial

 

[Stealthycat]

Our tax code and what it does has to be blown up and we start over not allowing the current state to ever happen again.

I agree

 

[AAABatteries]

I'm not a financial expert and I'm mostly pro-capitalism but there's little checks and balances in place to keep the money from flowing from the poor and middle class to the top 1-5%.  It is only getting worse.  The majority of the other 95 live paycheck to paycheck - are not saving and accumulating wealth and are not able buy property.  Consumerism has left those same 95% one emergency away from being bankrupt - usually a medical emergency.  I don't really know the answers but it's a real problem and seems to me that it is only going to get worse in the short term.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Our tax code and what it does has to be blown up and we start over not allowing the current state to ever happen again.

I was going to post/ask something on these lines that I would guess a bit has to do with the tax structure.  

How much of the issue would be addressed with something like the Flat Tax?  

Also, white collar crime would have to be taken seriously and pusished harshly.  CEOs shouldn't get millions after running companies into the ground and squandering all the employee's savings and jobs.  

 

[BobbyLayne]

How much of the issue would be addressed with something like the Flat Tax?  

It would exacerbate income disparity.

A flat income tax is highly regressive; it would shift the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class.

We currently have a progressive income tax; rates rise with income.

The issue most have with the tax code is it’s complexity. It’s a ruse to think switching from 7 rates to 1 simplifies the code.

The complexity of our income tax lies in 1) how we define income, and 2) the myriad of preferences, deductions and credits.

 

[KarmaPolice]

It would exacerbate income disparity.

A flat income tax is highly regressive; it would shift the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class.

We currently have a progressive income tax; rates rise with income.

The issue most have with the tax code is it’s complexity. It’s a ruse to think switching from 7 rates to 1 simplifies the code.

The complexity of our income tax lies in 1) how we define income, and 2) the myriad of preferences, deductions and credits.

It's been awhile since I've read the book, but I thought the premise of the idea was that the wealthy weren't as dependent on the income tax levels as the rest of us.  Ie - a CEO could take their income as a couple Million salary, but then the rest in stock incentives.  If that is true, then in compounded the problem in two ways - they could could earn on that money before getting taxed on it and then they are paying capital gains taxes, not income taxes.  Combining these things with the loopholes, inheritance taxes, etc..  have really accelerated the wealth gap.   Maybe that is what you are referring to in the last part when say that the problem lies in how we define income?

Again, it's been awhile since I read it, it's just that those ideas stuck with me.  

ETA:  Oh, this wasn't a flat INCOME tax they were talking about in the book- I agree with you that would make the problem worse.  It was a flat tax on goods and doing away with the income tax.  

 

[The Commish]

I was going to post/ask something on these lines that I would guess a bit has to do with the tax structure.  

How much of the issue would be addressed with something like the Flat Tax?  

Also, white collar crime would have to be taken seriously and pusished harshly.  CEOs shouldn't get millions after running companies into the ground and squandering all the employee's savings and jobs.  

I think we need to switch towards a consumption based tax and get away from taxing income, so the answer to your question really is "it depends on what we replace it with".  I suspect a continued issuance of tax based on income would cause more issues or at least similar issues to what we have today.  Our tax code does way more and touches way more things than income.  It's the land where we throw things we don't have the stomach to pass via actual legislation.  Can't agree on healthcare?  Tie it to taxes!  Want to give your really rich buddies a freebie/break on their investments?  Don't bother writing legislation, just throw it in the tax code!  

 

[KarmaPolice]

I think we need to switch towards a consumption based tax and get away from taxing income, so the answer to your question really is "it depends on what we replace it with".  I suspect a continued issuance of tax based on income would cause more issues or at least similar issues to what we have today.  Our tax code does way more and touches way more things than income.  It's the land where we throw things we don't have the stomach to pass via actual legislation.  Can't agree on healthcare?  Tie it to taxes!  Want to give your really rich buddies a freebie/break on their investments?  Don't bother writing legislation, just throw it in the tax code!  

Yes, this was what my question was getting at, not a flat income tax rate.  

The book I was talking about was The Fair Tax Book.  I just stumbled on it at the library one day and thought it looked interesting.  

 

[msommer]

It's been awhile since I've read the book, but I thought the premise of the idea was that the wealthy weren't as dependent on the income tax levels as the rest of us.  Ie - a CEO could take their income as a couple Million salary, but then the rest in stock incentives.  If that is true, then in compounded the problem in two ways - they could could earn on that money before getting taxed on it and then they are paying capital gains taxes, not income taxes.  Combining these things with the loopholes, inheritance taxes, etc..  have really accelerated the wealth gap.   Maybe that is what you are referring to in the last part when say that the problem lies in how we define income?

Again, it's been awhile since I read it, it's just that those ideas stuck with me.  

ETA:  Oh, this wasn't a flat INCOME tax they were talking about in the book- I agree with you that would make the problem worse.  It was a flat tax on goods and doing away with the income tax.  

That would hurt the people who spend the highest percentage of their wages (i.e. the lowest earners). Let's say you earn 10000 dollars. You spend that on food and housing.

The flat tax on goods (say 20%) means you pay 20% of your income to the government

Lets say you make a million. You spend 100000 on housing and food and whatnot. So you pay 20000 in flat tax. Which equates to 2% of your income in tax to the government.

 

[KarmaPolice]

That would hurt the people who spend the highest percentage of their wages (i.e. the lowest earners). Let's say you earn 10000 dollars. You spend that on food and housing.

The flat tax on goods (say 20%) means you pay 20% of your income to the government

Lets say you make a million. You spend 100000 on housing and food and whatnot. So you pay 20000 in flat tax. Which equates to 2% of your income in tax to the government.

I need to read this book again.  I remember their premise being that you could not tax basic necessities, so it doesn't hurt the lower income like you describe, and I think you are probably underestimating how much the wealthy would spend as well, but maybe not.   I don't remember all the details, just the main premise of their idea - hence me brining it up.  

Yes, I think their suggested rate was about 23% too.  

 

[The Commish]

Yes, this was what my question was getting at, not a flat income tax rate.  

The book I was talking about was The Fair Tax Book.  I just stumbled on it at the library one day and thought it looked interesting.  

Yeah, the devil would be in the details.  I think it's too simplistic to say one consumption based tax for everything.  We'd most likely have tiers of goods/services where "essentials" are the lowest taxed and work up from there.  At least that would be the way I'd try to head initially.  The most important part of whatever we came up with would be to limit it to the function it was initially intended and NOT allow it to become the dumping ground for things politicians want but don't really want to spend the political capital to get in the form of legislation.  That is what causes the bloat and absurdity of the code we have today and why we spend so much on the Internal Revenue Service today.  We spend billions on the collection of taxes in this country.  Does that make sense in any rational/logical way?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Entirely public financing of political campaigns would be a big start.

 

[msommer]

I need to read this book again.  I remember their premise being that you could not tax basic necessities, so it doesn't hurt the lower income like you describe, and I think you are probably underestimating how much the wealthy would spend as well, but maybe not.   I don't remember all the details, just the main premise of their idea - hence me brining it up.  

Yes, I think their suggested rate was about 23% too.  

Don't forget the wealthy have the option of spending abroad as well, something that is often missed in these scenarios, whereas the poor can only spend where they live

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I need to read this book again.  I remember their premise being that you could not tax basic necessities, so it doesn't hurt the lower income like you describe, and I think you are probably underestimating how much the wealthy would spend as well, but maybe not.   I don't remember all the details, just the main premise of their idea - hence me brining it up.  

Yes, I think their suggested rate was about 23% too.  

23% of each dollar spent is tax.  So really the tax rate is 23/77 or 30%.   

This is assuming that there are no carve outs other than education and that collecting the tax on the service industry will work just as well as collecting sales tax from retailers.  And the idea that we will now be collecting taxes on the underground economy that we are not today is complete  .

In other words the tax will realistically need to be higher than 23% no matter how it is calculated.  That doesn't necessarily disqualify it as a reasonable idea, but the FairTax sales pitches need to be taken with a great big grain of salt.

But... part of the FairTax proposal is tiny little 23% of poverty level is a family level basic income guarantee.  Though the FairTax people refuse to call it this.   Make that larger and now we will start redistributing the wealth generated in a much a fairer manner.

 

[msommer]

23% of each dollar spent is tax.  So really the tax rate is 23/77 or 30%.   

This is assuming that there are no carve outs other than education and that collecting the tax on the service industry will work just as well as collecting sales tax from retailers.  And the idea that we will now be collecting taxes on the underground economy that we are not today is complete  .

In other words the tax will realistically need to be higher than 23% no matter how it is calculated.  That doesn't necessarily disqualify it as a reasonable idea, but the FairTax sales pitches need to be taken with a great big grain of salt.

But... part of the FairTax proposal is tiny little 23% of poverty level is a family level basic income guarantee.  Though the FairTax people refuse to call it this.   Make that larger and now we will start redistributing the wealth generated in a much a fairer manner.

That's not how it works

Yeah, I know, you were told there would be no math...

 

[jon_mx]

23% of each dollar spent is tax.  So really the tax rate is 23/77 or 30%.   

This is assuming that there are no carve outs other than education and that collecting the tax on the service industry will work just as well as collecting sales tax from retailers.  And the idea that we will now be collecting taxes on the underground economy that we are not today is complete  .

In other words the tax will realistically need to be higher than 23% no matter how it is calculated.  That doesn't necessarily disqualify it as a reasonable idea, but the FairTax sales pitches need to be taken with a great big grain of salt.

But... part of the FairTax proposal is tiny little 23% of poverty level is a family level basic income guarantee.  Though the FairTax people refuse to call it this.   Make that larger and now we will start redistributing the wealth generated in a much a fairer manner.

The fair tax concept was good, the way they mislead people was not.  The 30 percent vs. 23 percent was only part of it.  They would also tell you would get to keep your full current salary in one breath, and in the next breath tell you that prices would go down because the embedded taxes would be removed.  But both could not happen. 

 

[BobbyLayne]

ETA:  Oh, this wasn't a flat INCOME tax they were talking about in the book- I agree with you that would make the problem worse.  It was a flat tax on goods and doing away with the income tax.  

Do you perhaps mean a VAT?

We already have a flat tax on Sales in 45 states. Of the 5 exceptions, only Alaska also has no income tax. 

If we eliminated the IRS

 (   as if!! who ever heard of a government agency closing )

we would need about an 11% VAT to generate the same federal revenue as our current income tax system. To make it less regressive, carve outs for the poor and elderly would raise it to 14%. If we wanted to eliminate FICA payroll tax for SS & Medicare, 20%.

How to axe the IRS switch to an elegant and fair value added tax

OK, great...we just fixed the U.S. tax system by adopting the European Tax System.

Anyone have any thoughts on Income Inequality or Redistribution of Wealth?

 

[That one guy]

utsonhisFairTaxshirt:

I haven’t read the book in a while and I’m more than willing to admit that it feels too good to be true in its goals and results, but income tax (IMO) isn’t the answer and we need change.  It’d be real nice if Congress would hold debates/hearings on this topic and put serious effort forth to coming up with a comprehensive and simple system (yeah, that’s probably a bit oxymoronic, but you get the point) that benefits the country as a whole

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The fair tax concept was good, the way they mislead people was not.  The 30 percent vs. 23 percent was only part of it.  They would also tell you would get to keep your full current salary in one breath, and in the next breath tell you that prices would go down because the embedded taxes would be removed.  But both could not happen. 

They took well advantage of having one believe that the same tax was paid twice.  And then turned around with the "now drug dealers will be paying taxes" nonsense.  

While I'm not opposed to a consumption tax - especially if automation has anything close to the impact on labor as some suggest, I think the biggest con is the idea that consumption has a greater "base" than income.   This would only be true (at the national level) when there was a negative savings rate.   The greater base comes from the elimination of preferential treatment that represent the tax expenditures (credits, deductions, etc.)  Switching from income to consumption to accomplish this otherwise politically infeasible tasks is also dishonest.

 

[Brony]

Changing tax code just seems like a band-aid.  I would imagine that the underlying problem is that corporations figured out that many lower and middle class jobs could be done elsewhere for cheaper.  We can either keep doing the same jobs and accept a lower income, or improve the skill set of lower and middle class and make it less likely to export that work.  Education and training are the best way to overcome this and we'd probably need to overhaul education if we want to stay ahead of the curve, as we're probably behind as is. 

 

[IC FBGCav]

Changing tax code just seems like a band-aid.  I would imagine that the underlying problem is that corporations figured out that many lower and middle class jobs could be done elsewhere for cheaper.  We can either keep doing the same jobs and accept a lower income, or improve the skill set of lower and middle class and make it less likely to export that work.  Education and training are the best way to overcome this and we'd probably need to overhaul education if we want to stay ahead of the curve, as we're probably behind as is. 

Education isn't an answer.  They are going to look at employees the same.  Moreso, if people can easily be replaced no matter education level.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Changing tax code just seems like a band-aid.  I would imagine that the underlying problem is that corporations figured out that many lower and middle class jobs could be done elsewhere for cheaper.  We can either keep doing the same jobs and accept a lower income, or improve the skill set of lower and middle class and make it less likely to export that work.  Education and training are the best way to overcome this and we'd probably need to overhaul education if we want to stay ahead of the curve, as we're probably behind as is. 

Wat

 

[IC FBGCav]

do you think the current system is off then ?

I don't ... .in the USA, unlike many places in the world, you can go from nothing to a multi-millionaire by the time your'e 30 years old. You an do it in sports, with an invention, with hard work, opening a business, etc etc.  That's unique for most countries - there, you're born poor, you're poor and will always be.

Owning something, building it, .... its not something most of us do and it should carry the rewards that's far and above what myself as a general laborer receives. I can't disagree that CEO's are overpaid though, it seems preposterous to have a 20 or 40 million dollar a year CEO and companies still do it.

If you make labor more valuable ie pay more, that will just raise the cost of goods and services - and the poor remain poor.

If I could change one thing - it'd be education. Only with education can change happen to "poor" communities. Lets be honest, some people are not meant to do high tech and high skill jobs, they will forever be low wage earners and middle wager earners. That's ok too - a hard honest day's worth is valuable, but its still exactly what it is and nothing more. I think there are problems with mass Fed/State general education .... revamp it all, and done right I think the changes would impact the low class people in right ways and changes would be beneficial

Yes, not only in America, you can make millions with a great idea.  It is not unique to America, do you think all citizens not having healthcare is unique to America?

If you own and create something and don't have more than your employees is the business owners fault.  Now being a business owner is hard especially when you can't offer healthcare unless you are Walmart or mcdonalds.

Class movement is harder now than 30 years ago, so being poor, you are more likely to be poor.  

Education should be great, but we care about HRC or a wall more than kids.  Unless they are being shot at, then it's the 2nd amendment.

Living in America.....

 

[IC FBGCav]

Also, the wealth inequalities on a macro level are much easier to explain.  If you had capital in the 70's and invested in assets and held those assets, you will be well off.  Because inflation was high, meaning the banks were eating the real interest and helping eroding the debt, plus interest rates fall faster than inflation means it was a perfect storm to accumulate wealth.

I think Warren Buffett said 1974 was the best time ever for investors.

This is why boomers have huge homes that their kids can never afford.  All expenses were low and they racked up.

So, it's not Americans now don't work and invest as well as people did in the 70, it's that there is not as much wealth to be had.  Boomers grabbed it, held on to it, and fight for dear life for it.  They voted twice as much as young people and encourage policy's to keep that wealth.  I would do the same if I were them.

 

[IC FBGCav]

Boomers bought homes that were 30k to 50k and their value for them is 15x that after 20 years if not more in good housing market areas.  I sold my home after 20 years in one of the best usa housing markets and made 67% this year.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Also, the wealth inequalities on a macro level are much easier to explain.  If you had capital in the 70's and invested in assets and held those assets, you will be well off.  Because inflation was high, meaning the banks were eating the real interest and helping eroding the debt, plus interest rates fall faster than inflation means it was a perfect storm to accumulate wealth.

I think Warren Buffett said 1974 was the best time ever for investors.

This is why boomers have huge homes that their kids can never afford.  All expenses were low and they racked up.

So, it's not Americans now don't work and invest as well as people did in the 70, it's that there is not as much wealth to be had.  Boomers grabbed it, held on to it, and fight for dear life for it.  They voted twice as much as young people and encourage policy's to keep that wealth.  I would do the same if I were them.

Recently I’ve been reading up on potential GDP. Essentially it breaks down GDP growth as being a function of two factors: increased productivity and population increase. Obviously, inthe short term (quarterly/annual/3-yr) there are many factors that lead to fluctuations. But when you pull back and look at 5, 10 and 20 year averages, the correlation is pretty high.

Right now our potential GDP is around 2-2.2%. Of that, about 0.75-1.25% will come from Productivity growth, and about 1% from population growth (which I believe refers not to birth rate but rather the net growth from new workers joining the work force.)

When you look at it from that perspective, baby boomers (including me) simply lucked into participating in the economy when potential GDP was at an all-time high. 

 

[Mookie]

To me, the interesting question is at what point the lower class start blowing things up.  It's shocking that we have this huge section of our underclass that actually supports the laws, policies, and mechanisms that actively screw them over.  

 

[IC FBGCav]

Recently I’ve been reading up on potential GDP. Essentially it breaks down GDP growth as being a function of two factors: increased productivity and population increase. Obviously, inthe short term (quarterly/annual/3-yr) there are many factors that lead to fluctuations. But when you pull back and look at 5, 10 and 20 year averages, the correlation is pretty high.

Right now our potential GDP is around 2-2.2%. Of that, about 0.75-1.25% will come from Productivity growth, and about 1% from population growth (which I believe refers not to birth rate but rather the net growth from new workers joining the work force.)

When you look at it from that perspective, baby boomers (including me) simply lucked into participating in the economy when potential GDP was at an all-time high. 

It was when GDP was high but caught the curve when banks were taking it up the #### by lending.  

Also, this is why American needs more younger people not less.  Only the young can supports the old if Americans are not having kids......

This is a key to a thriving economy.

 

[IC FBGCav]

To me, the interesting question is at what point the lower class start blowing things up.  It's shocking that we have this huge section of our underclass that actually supports the laws, policies, and mechanisms that actively screw them over.  

This is why Trump happened.  In middle America every 4 years you get, vote for me hope, vote for me change, vote for me jobs....

Well none of that happened so they were sick of voting for liars, you know Trump is a bullcrapper, but you have a better chance with a bullcrapper than a liar.  Most people don't get this.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

If you make labor more valuable ie pay more, that will just raise the cost of goods and services - and the poor remain poor.

This isnt true. Its an outmoded way of looking at it.  Often a company charges as much as it can for the widget (market), and then almost always pays its employees the least it can (market).  Very typical in America.

 

[msommer]

This is why Trump happened.  In middle America every 4 years you get, vote for me hope, vote for me change, vote for me jobs....

Well none of that happened so they were sick of voting for liars, you know Trump is a bullcrapper, but you have a better chance with a bullcrapper than a liar.  Most people don't get this.

Bang up job the bullcrapper is doing with income equality....

 

[-OZ-]

.

If you make labor more valuable ie pay more, that will just raise the cost of goods and services - and the poor remain poor.

If you make labor more valuable / expensive, companies will find ways to automate and outsource more to lower their actual costs.

 

[Stealthycat]

Yes, not only in America, you can make millions with a great idea.  It is not unique to America, do you think all citizens not having healthcare is unique to America?

in developed, Democratic countries yes .... in many parts of the world, no, you're stuck with very very very few chances to escape. Think communist countries, muslim countries etc.

hard work, great ideas, playing sports, college degree's, all accessible to anyone who wants it in the USA

 

[Stealthycat]

If you make labor more valuable / expensive, companies will find ways to automate and outsource more to lower their actual costs.

agreed

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

in developed, Democratic countries yes .... in many parts of the world, no, you're stuck with very very very few chances to escape. Think communist countries, muslim countries etc.

hard work, great ideas, playing sports, college degree's, all accessible to anyone who wants it in the USA

Democrats want us to be more like those other developed Democratic countries where you seem to agree that opportunities exist.  Nobody is advocating a move to become more like the communist or Muslim countries you’re describing.

 

[KarmaPolice]

in developed, Democratic countries yes .... in many parts of the world, no, you're stuck with very very very few chances to escape. Think communist countries, muslim countries etc.

hard work, great ideas, playing sports, college degree's, all accessible to anyone who wants it in the USA

Really?

 

[Stealthycat]

Really?

yes

I guess I need to say US citizens ... sad I have to clarify that :(  

 

[KarmaPolice]

yes

I guess I need to say US citizens ... sad I have to clarify that :(  

Still disagree that all US citizens have access to all those things, but that's no surprise that we would disagree.  

 

[Stealthycat]

Still disagree that all US citizens have access to all those things, but that's no surprise that we would disagree.  

give me an example of a US citizen who doesn't have access to advancing their lives

and I mean someone that isn't born with a physical or mental issue etc obviously and even then, there are countless examples of people exceeding while faced with those setbacks - in the USA more so than any place on the planet