If its a startup company, as I said before it's much easier to just rebrand. Especially if there's no criminal involvement and only public scrutiny. Also Causation/Correlation are two different things. I might write a mean yelp review but it doesn't mean I caused a restaurant to shutdown or swap ownership. It means I vented on the internet. Any legitimate organization has a social media division in the marketing department that would negate a single user, or even a user with bot accounts.
-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
Donald Trump impeachment investigation over Ukranian phone call...
- Thread starter Taleweaver
- Start date
- Views 49,965
- Replies 734
- Likes 5
If a Middle Class persons income increased that would put them in the upper class. Basically upward mobility. I don't think just looking at how many people are in which class is a good indicator of how well a group of people are doing, because you're just looking at numbers and not actual persons. How long do those people stay in the lower, middle and upper class? What about downward mobility? Wages for middles class has been stagnant but how long do people stay in the middle class? Are they the same people from 5 or 10 years ago? Did they move up or down? Without looking at actual persons you can't grasp how well the economy is doing.
That's assuming my involvement was purely some social media or online presence. When I hear about online "SJW" and Twitter "activists" I usually laugh. No, there's a lot more involved then simply posting shit online.
I have guns, so I'm okay with all of those things being taken away. I'll still get mine.
EDIT v2: Had to manually reinsert images
EDIT v1: I had a few clarifications that needed to be made so I snipped my post and pasted it back with the required changes. This is lengthy, but you have been inquiring on a topic that isn't able to be answered in a few sentences. If you have further questions I expect you to seek out the information as the time investment for economic debates is beyond the scope of what the original topic of discussion is supposed to be and this is not something I'm wanting to debate as most aren't genuinely desiring discussion, but to just continuously move goalposts.
No first you need to define upper class before you try to make such as claim. Wages for middle class have been stagnant. This isn't an opinion. It's fact.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...-ground-financially-to-upper-income-families/
The 2018 piece from Pew reported that, in 2016, the median income for the upper-income class was $187,872. While for the middle class, it was $78,442, and for the lower class, it was $25,624.
The vast, and I do mean vast majority of middle-class families will never become upper class. A good indicator for how a group is doing is by using median income.
A growing Wealth inequality is demonstrated as on the rise due to an increase in low and upper class but dwindling of middle class. In healthy economies we would like to see an increase of both middle-class and upper-class with the median income of all three increasing.
What we are experiencing is negative for the health of our economy. The median income for the upper class has ~60% growth, middle class 43% growth and lower class 36% growth in median income. If we account for cumulative inflation it can easily be determined that we are in a stagnation by examining our purchasing power.
$1 dollar in 1970 is worth over $6 dollars today ("In other words, $1 in 1970 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $6.19 in 2016, a difference of $5.19 over 46 years. ")
Actual growth rates from 1970 - 2018
1.36 lowerclass median income growth
1.43 middleclass median income growth
1.583 upperclass median income growth
While we can observe a decent gap in growth, but maybe 50 years is too far back to hold validity. Let's examine inflation and growth rate of median income of growth since the 90s.
$1 dollar in 1990 is worth almost $2 dollars today ("In other words, $100 in 1990 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $192.12 in 2018, a difference of $92.12 over 28 years.")
Actual growth rates from 1990 - 2018
1.110 lowerclass median income growth
1.139 middleclass median income growth
1.223 upperclass median income growth
Whether you look at 50 years back or just only 30. We have a significant shortfall in growth in wages for those not in the upper income classification. But wait, who has had growth in median income that reflected the amount equivalent in purchasing power? Those who aren't working jobs, but that are investors and live off investments. CEO compensation vs worker compensation is another concerning disparity that is often mentioned as well.
https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/
"From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%."
Let’s start looking at median net-worth of each income then to see how the disparity of wage effects families net-worth over time. So what issue are we facing? A growing gap in the wealth of upper-income families to lower-income families and middle-income families.
--------------------
To those who can afford to start their own business or invest more than 30% of their annual income in diversified stocks, sure they will potentially benefit from the current status quo. The rest will not. If the economic structure isn't benefiting the majority, then our society is becoming 'poorer'. That's just how that works. It may seem absurd at first to see those figures. Think oh sure in the 70s, lower income families had as much purchasing power as upper middle-class families today but think about it. Most people didn't need to take out 30year loans to afford a home, owned more land, boats. Now more and more people are in rent controlled homes, can't get approved to purchase their first home without a cosign from their parents or waiting 5+ years after joining the workforce just to afford a down-payment - a down-payment! People I grew up with were able to self-finance the entire construction of their home during that time and it be paid off!
Sigh... look, this is a sincere concern as I see communities who didn't grow up with the silver spoon I shoved in my families' mouth. I don't think the majority of the youth are better off today than they were a few decades ago. Place your blame on the immigrants or people on welfare but they aren't the ones who siphoned up all the wages of most Americans. Most people in my generation have decided they earned what they earned and are willing to shore up what's left of it and tune out the concerns and pleas of the younger generations. Be thankful there are some who haven't.
I've said my peace on the economic state the Country is in. I'm sure people will bring up convenient distractions to try to explain away how Americans weren't robbed over the past years, but all the evidence is there. This is why you have 'radicals' who want to substantially increase taxes on corporations and the wealthy. To revert taxation back to where it was in the 70s, prior to Reagan tax cuts, which would lessen the effective tax burden on the middle class to increase discretionary income, small business ventures, and fund societal resources that have been starved for generations.
Caveat/advanced rebuttal to data selection: There are models that attempt to broaden the middle-class by increasing the upper limit to 250k, while it increases the number of families proportionally that are 'middle-class' it actually only further exacerbates the wealth inequality and growth rate of income from upper-class vs lower-class and middle-class. With the exception of places with extremely high cost of living like New York City or Los Angeles, I find that to be a poor model of definition as it doesn't apply well to the majority of America.
Last edited by RationalityIsLost101,
Could the growing gap between middle and uppers class be because more middle class people are entering the upper class? This can affect wealth accumulated in the top 20% because more people are up there now compared to the past. This is why numbers about wealth is useless without talking about individual peoples.EDIT v2: Had to manually reinsert images
EDIT v1: I had a few clarifications that needed to be made so I snipped my post and pasted it back with the required changes. This is lengthy, but you have been inquiring on a topic that isn't able to be answered in a few sentences. If you have further questions I expect you to seek out the information as the time investment for economic debates is beyond the scope of what the original topic of discussion is supposed to be and this is not something I'm wanting to debate as most aren't genuinely desiring discussion, but to just continuously move goalposts.
No first you need to define upper class before you try to make such as claim. Wages for middle class have been stagnant. This isn't an opinion. It's fact.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...-ground-financially-to-upper-income-families/
The 2018 piece from Pew reported that, in 2016, the median income for the upper-income class was $187,872. While for the middle class, it was $78,442, and for the lower class, it was $25,624.
The vast, and I do mean vast majority of middle-class families will never become upper class. A good indicator for how a group is doing is by using median income.
A growing Wealth inequality is demonstrated as on the rise due to an increase in low and upper class but dwindling of middle class. In healthy economies we would like to see an increase of both middle-class and upper-class with the median income of all three increasing.
What we are experiencing is negative for the health of our economy. The median income for the upper class has ~60% growth, middle class 43% growth and lower class 36% growth in median income. If we account for cumulative inflation it can easily be determined that we are in a stagnation by examining our purchasing power.
$1 dollar in 1970 is worth over $6 dollars today ("In other words, $1 in 1970 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $6.19 in 2016, a difference of $5.19 over 46 years. ")
Actual growth rates from 1970 - 2018
1.36 lowerclass median income growth
1.43 middleclass median income growth
1.583 upperclass median income growth
While we can observe a decent gap in growth, but maybe 50 years is too far back to hold validity. Let's examine inflation and growth rate of median income of growth since the 90s.
$1 dollar in 1990 is worth almost $2 dollars today ("In other words, $100 in 1990 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $192.12 in 2018, a difference of $92.12 over 28 years.")
Actual growth rates from 1990 - 2018
1.110 lowerclass median income growth
1.139 middleclass median income growth
1.223 upperclass median income growth
Whether you look at 50 years back or just only 30. We have a significant shortfall in growth in wages for those not in the upper income classification. But wait, who has had growth in median income that reflected the amount equivalent in purchasing power? Those who aren't working jobs, but that are investors and live off investments. CEO compensation vs worker compensation is another concerning disparity that is often mentioned as well.
https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/
"From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%."
Let’s start looking at median net-worth of each income then to see how the disparity of wage effects families net-worth over time. So what issue are we facing? A growing gap in the wealth of upper-income families to lower-income families and middle-income families.
--------------------
To those who can afford to start their own business or invest more than 30% of their annual income in diversified stocks, sure they will potentially benefit from the current status quo. The rest will not. If the economic structure isn't benefiting the majority, then our society is becoming 'poorer'. That's just how that works. It may seem absurd at first to see those figures. Think oh sure in the 70s, lower income families had as much purchasing power as upper middle-class families today but think about it. Most people didn't need to take out 30year loans to afford a home, owned more land, boats. Now more and more people are in rent controlled homes, can't get approved to purchase their first home without a cosign from their parents or waiting 5+ years after joining the workforce just to afford a down-payment - a down-payment! People I grew up with were able to self-finance the entire construction of their home during that time and it be paid off!
Sigh... look, this is a sincere concern as I see communities who didn't grow up with the silver spoon I shoved in my families' mouth. I don't think the majority of the youth are better off today than they were a few decades ago. Place your blame on the immigrants or people on welfare but they aren't the ones who siphoned up all the wages of most Americans. Most people in my generation have decided they earned what they earned and are willing to shore up what's left of it and tune out the concerns and pleas of the younger generations. Be thankful there are some who haven't.
I've said my peace on the economic state the Country is in. I'm sure people will bring up convenient distractions to try to explain away how Americans weren't robbed over the past years, but all the evidence is there. This is why you have 'radicals' who want to substantially increase taxes on corporations and the wealthy. To revert taxation back to where it was in the 70s, prior to Reagan tax cuts, which would lessen the effective tax burden on the middle class to increase discretionary income, small business ventures, and fund societal resources that have been starved for generations.
Caveat/advanced rebuttal to data selection: There are models that attempt to broaden the middle-class by increasing the upper limit to 250k, while it increases the number of families proportionally that are 'middle-class' it actually only further exacerbates the wealth inequality and growth rate of income from upper-class vs lower-class and middle-class. With the exception of places with extremely high cost of living like New York City or Los Angeles, I find that to be a poor model of definition as it doesn't apply well to the majority of America.
Family sizes and the number of those working in that family also affect household income too. Are the same number of people living in households now compared to before? Your statistics are using household incomes and not talking about individuals. If family sizes have become smaller and the number that work in that family reduce because of smaller families, and household statistics takes all of the income of the people in that family combined then of course household incomes go down.
Economic mobility is a good indicator if the American dream is alive and well, and so far I get two conflicting opinions/statistics about how economical mobile Americans are. Some areas in the U.S. there is great mobility and some other areas there is not.
I've semi-addressed this already. There are those who have entered upperclass from middleclass. This is where things get lost. You claim some have upward mobility but also ignore the downward mobility. Equal parts of people who entered upper class have fallen into lower class. We've also significantly increased the proportion of people in dual income families. We had the dot com boom, more automation, the highest worker productivity in human history, and in the end we've only obtained upward mobility for a minority. If you want to talk to individual people than you can. But multi-generational statistical trends are going to be more objective than anecdotes.
Below is a link that is a good read - It's alot but you have to start somewhere.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-6/understanding-the-labor-productivity-and-compensation-gap.htm
One income families vs two income families. There was a time when one income would be sufficient for most families, would nearly guarantee entrance into middle-class if two incomes were available. We've long lost that option and more american families are forced to have dual incomes to stay afloat. The reasoning behind this pressure for dual incomes is to secure medical benefits and provide a safety net to pay loans/bills if the other spouse is in-between jobs or the employer offers unsatisfactory benefits.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/12/fathers-day-facts/
"As of 2016, about a quarter of couples (27%) who live with children younger than 18 were in families where only the father works. This marked a dramatic change from 1970, when almost half of these couples (47%) were in families where only the dad worked. The share of couples living in dual-earner families has risen significantly and now comprises the majority of two-parent families with children."
I just want to drive this home about the dual income families that I didn't before. The fact that there is a significant increase in household with dual incomes and that there is not even more people in the middle and upper income bracket is further confirmation that something is broken.
There are some societal factors impacting the dip in dual income at the end, since 2000s, stay at home fathers have emerged. Mr. Moms if you will. There also is a divorce rate influence, but since divorce impacts all social classes, and an equal part of those divorce also remarry, I exclude it.
I am concluding my provision of economic information that is way off-topic. If you need more you have ample resources at your disposal. You don't need me to write essays to continue to inform you. If you want any further discussion with me you will need to provide stats and analysis. I can't just talk about anecdotes. If anyone was to actually support economic policy of any kind I would expect the math to support it or I would declare them a lunatic and move on.
We wouldn’t be the richest nation for much longer if any of those were recognized as “rights.” None of these are “rights” in any founding document. Not the Declaration. Not the Constitution. Not any amendments to the Constitution. If they were, the USA would’ve dissolved 240 years ago, flat broke.
You clearly live at home with your parents.
Thank you for admitting that the difference between us is you don't think health care, education, and housing should be rights. That makes things easy.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 17,801
- Trophies
- 3
- Location
- The Lands Between
- Website
- gbatemp.net
- XP
- 8,728
- Country
The money gets spent either way. The federal budget deficit is about 60% higher (over $1 trillion) under Trump than it was at any point during the Obama years. Right now it's spent on corporate welfare and making the rich richer, when it could be going to much more worthy causes.
Dear Democratic Colleague,
For weeks, the President, his Counsel in the White House, and his allies in Congress have made the baseless claim that the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry “lacks the necessary authorization for a valid impeachment proceeding.” They argue that, because the House has not taken a vote, they may simply pretend the impeachment inquiry does not exist.
Of course, this argument has no merit. The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” Multiple past impeachments have gone forward without any authorizing resolutions. Just last week, a federal court confirmed that the House is not required to hold a vote and that imposing such a requirement would be “an impermissible intrusion on the House’s constitutional authority.” More than 300 legal scholars have also refuted this argument, concluding that “the Constitution does not mandate the process for impeachment and there is no constitutional requirement that the House of Representatives authorize an impeachment inquiry before one begins.”
The Trump Administration has made up this argument – apparently out of whole cloth – in order to justify its unprecedented cover-up, withhold key documents from multiple federal agencies, prevent critical witnesses from cooperating, and defy duly authorized subpoenas.
This week, we will bring a resolution to the Floor that affirms the ongoing, existing investigation that is currently being conducted by our committees as part of this impeachment inquiry, including all requests for documents, subpoenas for records and testimony, and any other investigative steps previously taken or to be taken as part of this investigation.
This resolution establishes the procedure for hearings that are open to the American people, authorizes the disclosure of deposition transcripts, outlines procedures to transfer evidence to the Judiciary Committee as it considers potential articles of impeachment, and sets forth due process rights for the President and his Counsel.
We are taking this step to eliminate any doubt as to whether the Trump Administration may withhold documents, prevent witness testimony, disregard duly authorized subpoenas, or continue obstructing the House of Representatives.
Nobody is above the law.
best regards
Nancy
For weeks, the President, his Counsel in the White House, and his allies in Congress have made the baseless claim that the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry “lacks the necessary authorization for a valid impeachment proceeding.” They argue that, because the House has not taken a vote, they may simply pretend the impeachment inquiry does not exist.
Of course, this argument has no merit. The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” Multiple past impeachments have gone forward without any authorizing resolutions. Just last week, a federal court confirmed that the House is not required to hold a vote and that imposing such a requirement would be “an impermissible intrusion on the House’s constitutional authority.” More than 300 legal scholars have also refuted this argument, concluding that “the Constitution does not mandate the process for impeachment and there is no constitutional requirement that the House of Representatives authorize an impeachment inquiry before one begins.”
The Trump Administration has made up this argument – apparently out of whole cloth – in order to justify its unprecedented cover-up, withhold key documents from multiple federal agencies, prevent critical witnesses from cooperating, and defy duly authorized subpoenas.
This week, we will bring a resolution to the Floor that affirms the ongoing, existing investigation that is currently being conducted by our committees as part of this impeachment inquiry, including all requests for documents, subpoenas for records and testimony, and any other investigative steps previously taken or to be taken as part of this investigation.
This resolution establishes the procedure for hearings that are open to the American people, authorizes the disclosure of deposition transcripts, outlines procedures to transfer evidence to the Judiciary Committee as it considers potential articles of impeachment, and sets forth due process rights for the President and his Counsel.
We are taking this step to eliminate any doubt as to whether the Trump Administration may withhold documents, prevent witness testimony, disregard duly authorized subpoenas, or continue obstructing the House of Representatives.
Nobody is above the law.
best regards
Nancy
Interesting to see what excuse his lawyers magic out of thin air to obstruct now.
So the people that are working are getting paid and the people who aren't working aren't getting paid. Sounds about fair to me. There's no reason why the rich people who have made something of themselves should have to give their money to freeloading scum like yourself, simply because you're lazy and envious.
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
or what excuse the democrats come up with on why they haven't actually impeached him yet ...
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 17,801
- Trophies
- 3
- Location
- The Lands Between
- Website
- gbatemp.net
- XP
- 8,728
- Country
Rofl, you think Jeff Bezos works to earn thousands of dollars a second? He doesn't work at all, and even if he did, nobody's labor has that kind of value as an individual, such wealth is only obtained by exploiting the labor of others.
If you're born rich, staying rich is not "making something of yourself." Rather, it makes you a useless leech and a net drain on society.
I pay my taxes, unlike billionaires and yuppie scumbags (a group you're probably a part of) that do their best to avoid supporting their country and fellow countrymen.
Last edited by Xzi,
I'm not quite sure what your goals are. Do you not want a healthy economy? or a fair and representative government? or public services like firefighters, clean water, or a judicial system?
Or do you believe those things are achieved by the rich obtaining more money and not through reforms and managing influence and wealth?
hell SSI is a trap i live it but i want to work but cant because soon as i do i get thrown under the bus i can barely make ends meet (live on my own with section 8) but i doubt the government would ever loosen the restrictions to EVEN ALLOW me to work i only worked once in my life at minimum wage even payed taxes on it the government is all too eager to take away your benifiets but take their sweet ass time to reinstate fully
He wants whatever Sean Hannity on Fox tells him to want
I've posted elsewhere here, recently, that I support public schools. Perhaps I should have been more specific that I support the traditional form of public education, which is through secondary school. That's enough, if the schools are doing their job of teaching correctly, to prepare a person to function as a adult in the workplace and society generally. But Xzi said "higher education." Sorry, can't get on board with that.
But as I said before, no founding document establishes any of those things as rights. They have never historically been considered rights in the USA. If you want them to be rights, pass an amendment.
You're quite wrong, but judging from your immediate use of ad hominem, that probably isn't something you worry about.
Last edited by Hanafuda,
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2015
- Messages
- 3,825
- Trophies
- 1
- Location
- The State of Denial
- Website
- gbatemp.net
- XP
- 5,666
- Country
Working = rich, unemployed = poor?
Last year unemployment was 6.6mil. But 43.1mil americans were below the poverty line. On average, even with a doctorate, people are still only making five figures a year. Naivety aside, why do people want others to suffer? Where does this "I got mine, fuck everyone else" attitude come from? What happened to making America great?
Just in this thread alone we've discussed this at length. It's more of an ideology of his at this point.
Funding public education so that general populace would be equipped to pursue trade schools or higher education in colleges - worth it because I would like my contractors to know how to construct my house properly and follow the layout designed by my architect. Or have a Civil engineer that knows who to design the infrastructure I use to commute to my office. If we can provide incentive to those who have the ability to pursue that additional training or education than we benefit by having a successful and competent workforce.
We have student loan forgiveness for those who work in public service. I believe it should be expanded to those who do trade skills that we have deficits in. We used to have family businesses that passed down those trade skills but they have eroded over the years. STEM fields are also at a shortage because of supply/demand.
The higher educated our populace is, the better we are as a whole. But I do think if we are footing the bill, we have to increase the rigors of admissions and require an occupational declaration (I know people declare their majors but beyond the degree, to ensure that a society who funds the education is getting a proper return on investment) Once people work a number of years in their declared field their educational loan should be forgiven.
If they renege on their declaration or drop out the workforce before their loan is forgiven then the expense of that education should fall under their responsibility, prorated to however much left they owe. This would aim to prevent abuse or waste.
Why am I thinking about this? If someone wanted to make all public colleges tuition free, there will be a fiscal party that will have to be persuaded to jump on board. This is what I envision an appropriate compromise would be.
Similar threads
