I think that would make them illegal. Pretty sure part of the whole getting Americanized process requires you to speak English. Those people might not even be included in the graph since they live off the grid.
One question I have for you is something that Red just brought up. Are all of us 99%'ers really doing steadily better? There is the devaluation of money to contend with. I think we spend a larger chunk of our paychecks on health care and food. And possibly shelter. Martin, you really need to accept that capitalism will never function perfectly like the textbooks say it should. I'd like you to better explain why monopolies wouldn't exist without government intervention. I am in total agreement that government allows big business to manipulate the system to the detriment of the poor and that in general the federal government needs to be reduced. But just because people get richer doesn't mean that money is going to trickle down in more significant degrees than it was before they were making extra boatloads of money; at least not to anyone more than their own families. And yeah, I agree that in general the poorer of us live better than the poor of a number of nations, but how much better off are our 99%'ers than those of other first world nations, really? What role do technological advances play into that, as opposed to trickle down economics? And, again, don't forget about inflation. PS: I also seem to remember that our poorer neighborhoods have the infant mortality rate of a third world nation.
thats all their fault so we dont care. they shouldnt have gotten pregnant if the kid was going to die.
you spend less on food than anyone in history, perecentage-wise. and the devaluation of money is the fault of obama and the spendy democrat government. because of competition. rich people buy yachts and houses. who builds those? depends on how free the economy of the nation is. if you mean ireland, we are about the same because they have a relatively free economy. but hungary is much poorer because they have been less free economically. the riches of any nation are pretty much proportional to the degree that their economy is free. we are richer than russia because we have a stronger history of capitalism, not because of resources. if there were a country with more freedom than us, they would be richer, and their poor would be better off. hong kong is close to being superior to the US.
If the government continues to give out entitlements, the bottom part of red's chart will never grow more than 5% because those groups have been disincentivised to do any real work to grow their status. Lets exclude the filthy rich for one moment and talk about those in that 2-5% of the top earners. These are people who are earning +$250K per year of taxable income. These are your entrepreneurs, small business owners, and ambitionists. These are the people who are able to create jobs in the local communities. This is the guy who takes his single truck electrical business and grows it into a fleet of 10+ vehicles with 20 employees through hard work and ingenuity and the entrepreneurial spirit. Why do we need to punish this guy who has created jobs for people who can earn an honest living and pay taxes. This business also pays its fair share of payroll taxes. And when it is time for this entrepreneur to enjoy the fruits of his labor and spirit, the government swoops in and takes a large chunk of his profits and passes them to non-workers in the form of entitlements. The current administration veils this as redistribution of wealth, aka, decreasing the gap between the haves and have nots. I'm not an electrician, but I do see the fruits of my labor and my entrepreneurial spirit being taken away from me and redistributed to those who don't work for it and it is extremely frustrating. Even those on the socialist wagon have got to see that side of the argument. You don't have to agree with my position (and you won't), but you have to admit that you can see why we are frustrated. If you can't cop to at least understanding our frustration, you are truly a statist.
It seems I've heard the opposite. Among other reasons. Is that what history taught us? These big corporations can choke out the little guy. The government does seem to often add fuel to the fire in the name of regulation, though. Are you unwilling to admit that true capitalism will never exist in the real world? You seem to believe that pure capitalism will solve everything but it just isn't realistic to believe that it will ever exist. There's the key to a happy society. The point was that rich folks don't buy that much more when they get even richer. They could already buy anything their little golden hearts desired. You say poor folks here got it good, and I'd say compared to most countries in Africa you are right. But amoung our equals I wouldn't say our poor folks have it good; they have opportunities and they have obstacles. Obstacles such as big government and big business.
well you heard wrong. now we americans spend less of our income on food than ever. although i guess i should note that some of our tax money goes to making that food cheaper. mostly the unhealthy food is subsidized by the government. i am not and never have been, for "pure" capitalism. then they invest, which is also good for the economy. they dont put their money under their pillow. they put in a bank for it to be loaned to others, or into some other investment that helps the economy. as far as monopolies, they dont exist. they havent for many years. 130 years ago, if you lived in a town with one railroad track and the train passed by once a week with supplies, i can see a monopoly taking hold, but now their are options. now when the government pursues someone for monopolistic practices, like microsoft, it is a total waste of money. in the case of MS, the consumer has options, cheaper (free), better options. and yet the government still prosecuted.
