Χά�ων Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I don't like sports and have never been interested in playing or watching them for the most part. But I have no issue with the pay a few get. There is serious risk of being crippled for life or brain damaged in many of these high paying sports. They usually have to "retire" by 30. All for the sake of good entertainment. I'd have to be paid a huge amounts to risk that for people's amusement too. Now public school coaches? AstroTurf stadiums? No. Absolutely not. I don't even think there should be a school team. Old fashioned pick up games in gym class with a teacher paid a regular teacher pay for it. Even the ones who retire by 30 can make $100/hour for private lessons. Sometimes more than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5of5 Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I agree, I don't understand why Americans are so gaga over professional sports that they will pay prices that support such large salaries. That said, I don't see blaming anyone besides those who pay to watch it. I'm not defending it per se, but it is just a form of entertainment. If we are going to complain about such salaries, then we should also find fault with the highest paid actors, rock stars, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caroline Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Could you (or anyone) please clarify this for me. I did not interpret the information that way at all. You're saying, if I understand you, that rich Americans are richer than, say, rich Swedes. But I thought the information presented (Gini's coefficient) is saying that the disparity between rich and non-rich Americans is greater than the disparity between rich and non-rich Swedes. And that's something else entirely. Right? Right. Anyone who has a kid taking calculus, Stewart's book has a nice explanation of the Gini Index using integrals and areas under curves. Most of my cal students take economics simultaneously, and they enjoy this connection. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Χά�ων Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I don't like sports and have never been interested in playing or watching them for the most part. But I have no issue with the pay a few get. There is serious risk of being crippled for life or brain damaged in many of these high paying sports. They usually have to "retire" by 30. All for the sake of good entertainment. I'd have to be paid a huge amounts to risk that for people's amusement too. Now public school coaches? AstroTurf stadiums? No. Absolutely not. I don't even think there should be a school team. Old fashioned pick up games in gym class with a teacher paid a regular teacher pay for it. The many who make it to 30 to retire without being crippled for life can make $100 or more an hour offering private coaching. They can make a ton doing a week long intensive camp guest by being a guest coach. The camps use the big names to draw more interest. When my son was doing hockey they would bring in guys who never made it to the NHL (maybe AHL, but sometimes not even that) and use that as the selling point. The former player was an assistant coach during the on ice portions and often had a couple dozen private lesson slots filled weeks before camp even started plus their travel expenses were covered. Think about that. They are working 10-12 hours during the 5 day camp to fit in all the private lessons and are making $100/hour (or more, did I mention the 'and more' part?) and have all their travel expenses covered. That is not a small amount of money. If they were smart they got a degree that will make transition into a non professional athlete career smooth. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greta Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Right. Anyone who has a kid taking calculus, Stewart's book has a nice explanation of the Gini Index using integrals and areas under curves. Most of my cal students take economics simultaneously, and they enjoy this connection. You are correct. She misunderstood the graph. It has nothing to do with whether wealthy Americans are richer than other foreigners. I also tend to believe that it's this disparity that so many are upset about, not merely the bank accounts of the super-rich. Thank you both. I wanted to make sure I had that right. As to the bolded, I know that's certainly what upsets me personally. Not that the rich have more than I (and most) do. But that they have gotten insanely MORE rich at the same time that the middle class has been increasingly unable to afford what used to be considered the basics/necessities of middle class life: healthcare, housing, and education. The 99% is struggling more at the same time that the 1% is more advantaged and privileged than before. That's just not right. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3in9th Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Neither of us are adjuncts (or instructors of any kind), but I really would like to know which universities and colleges are treating their faculty better, because that's the kind of place I would like to send my daughter! Not only will she have a better education, but it's also a way of voting with my dollars for the kind of treatment that I think faculty has earned and deserves. Not perfect, but adjuncts do well here- http://www.passhe.edu/Pages/default.aspx 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Could you (or anyone) please clarify this for me. I did not interpret the information that way at all. You're saying, if I understand you, that rich Americans are richer than, say, rich Swedes. But I thought the information presented (Gini's coefficient) is saying that the disparity between rich and non-rich Americans is greater than the disparity between rich and non-rich Swedes. And that's something else entirely. Right? They didn't explain how they quantify the disparity, so it is hard to know what they mean. But I assume the poorest person in any country has $0 income, or close to it. Now if the disparity between the lowest and highest in Country A is 100x, what does that mean? The richest person has 100x? Then if the disparity in Country B is 20% higher, what does that mean? The riches person in Country B has 120x? I don't know. I think the more important measure would be how the poor and working class get along in either country. Would you rather be poor / working class in the US or in India (which claims to have lower disparity than the US)? How about Egypt? I believe Iran was above the US as well. I don't care how rich the richest guy is, absolutely or relatively, as long as regular people have the things they need. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greta Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Not perfect, but adjuncts do well here- http://www.passhe.edu/Pages/default.aspx Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I do think that the skyrocketing costs of education and health care are the biggest hurdles for middle class people. And I don't mean how the costs are spread around, I mean the fact that you can't get value for a dollar any more, no matter how it's paid for. I don't know about housing. I guess it depends on where you live and whether it's practical for you to move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greta Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 They didn't explain how they quantify the disparity, so it is hard to know what they mean. But I assume the poorest person in any country has $0 income, or close to it. Now if the disparity between the lowest and highest in Country A is 100x, what does that mean? The richest person has 100x? Then if the disparity in Country B is 20% higher, what does that mean? The riches person in Country B has 120x? I don't know. I think the more important measure would be how the poor and working class get along in either country. Would you rather be poor / working class in the US or in India (which claims to have lower disparity than the US)? How about Egypt? I believe Iran was above the US as well. I don't care how rich the richest guy is, absolutely or relatively, as long as regular people have the things they need. Thanks, SKL. I understand a lot better now what you were saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Χά�ων Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 They didn't explain how they quantify the disparity, so it is hard to know what they mean. But I assume the poorest person in any country has $0 income, or close to it. Now if the disparity between the lowest and highest in Country A is 100x, what does that mean? The richest person has 100x? Then if the disparity in Country B is 20% higher, what does that mean? The riches person in Country B has 120x? I don't know. I think the more important measure would be how the poor and working class get along in either country. Would you rather be poor / working class in the US or in India (which claims to have lower disparity than the US)? How about Egypt? I believe Iran was above the US as well. I don't care how rich the richest guy is, absolutely or relatively, as long as regular people have the things they need. Like health care that is out of reach financially for millions of Americans? Guess why I am not looking at going back to work until my son is much much older? Because I would fall in the rather large gap between qualifying for aid and being able to afford his insane medical bills. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matryoshka Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 But I assume the poorest person in any country has $0 income, or close to it. Now if the disparity between the lowest and highest in Country A is 100x, what does that mean? The richest person has 100x? Then if the disparity in Country B is 20% higher, what does that mean? The riches person in Country B has 120x? I don't know. They're not comparing the poorest person with the richest person, they're comparing the lowest quintile with the highest. So, there is no $0, and your math doesn't work.The lowest 10% is very poor, but do make more than $0 on average, as they're still taking aggregate data from a lot of poor people. If there were enough people in the US earning $0 to make up the whole bottom 10% of the population and make your math work, you really wouldn't see that as a problem? I don't care how rich the richest guy is, absolutely or relatively, as long as regular people have the things they need. Well, they don't. Did you even watch that little video on the 1%? May be worth a few minutes of your time. If you really agree with the reality (not the ideal or what most people think it is), please come back and explain why. And also why it's fine that the top few guys have had their piece of the pie increase by such a huge ginormous percentage over just a couple of decades, while everyone else's has decreased. It's not just that the richest dudes have gotten obscenely more wealthy, it's that it's been at the expense of everyone else - even the moderately wealthy. Please actually watch it before you respond. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Did you even watch that little video on the 1%? May be worth a few minutes of your time. If you really agree with the reality (not the ideal or what most people think it is), please come back and explain why. And also why it's fine that the top few guys have had their piece of the pie increase by such a huge ginormous percentage over just a couple of decades, while everyone else's has decreased. It's not just that the richest dudes have gotten obscenely more wealthy, it's that it's been at the expense of everyone else - even the moderately wealthy. Please actually watch it before you respond. I watched it the day it was posted. It was not news to me, not shocking, not really concerning. I explained why. You can agree or disagree. I don't believe wealthy people have an insidious plan to keep poor and working class people at the edge of starvation, as some seem to believe. I don't believe a substantial % of Americans are suffering with the inability to provide for their basic needs. I don't believe hating on rich people is going to improve the lot of the poor one iota. I think having such a negative attitude as a community actually shrinks the "pie." And no, I don't have a "link" for that, but it's not a mindset that is unique to me. As for that gini thing, I said I didn't understand it. Maybe someone would like to explain it to me, but again, I don't believe relative wealth is important. It may be interesting, but it doesn't make anyone happy or provide for anyone's needs. I would rather be "poor" in the USA than working-class in India. (No offense to Indians.) 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Χά�ων Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I watched it the day it was posted. It was not news to me, not shocking, not really concerning. I explained why. You can agree or disagree. I don't believe wealthy people have an insidious plan to keep poor and working class people at the edge of starvation, as some seem to believe. I don't believe a substantial % of Americans are suffering with the inability to provide for their basic needs. I don't believe hating on rich people is going to improve the lot of the poor one iota. I think having such a negative attitude as a community actually shrinks the "pie." And no, I don't have a "link" for that, but it's not a mindset that is unique to me. As for that gini thing, I said I didn't understand it. Maybe someone would like to explain it to me, but again, I don't believe relative wealth is important. It may be interesting, but it doesn't make anyone happy or provide for anyone's needs. I would rather be "poor" in the USA than working-class in India. (No offense to Indians.) Please define what you mean by basic needs. I am wondering if you are referring to something other than what I am thinking of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Please define what you mean by basic needs. I am wondering if you are referring to something other than what I am thinking of. What is needed to keep oneself and one's family in a condition to pursue work, relationships, and healthy interests. I know you are going to point out that your son's medical issue is not affordable to most people. I am sure you are correct. I think that kind of issue, which is uncommon, should be covered by the state (or the feds) regardless of income. Some states either do, or used to, cover certain chronic problems for all without income tests. We could afford this, especially if we stopped insisting on paying for stuff that is not as important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greta Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I don't believe hating on rich people is going to improve the lot of the poor one iota. No, but taxing them more sure could. :) 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matryoshka Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 As for that gini thing, I said I didn't understand it. Maybe someone would like to explain it to me, but again, I don't believe relative wealth is important. It may be interesting, but it doesn't make anyone happy or provide for anyone's needs. Well, here's some research to explain it to you: http://www.nationaljournal.com/next-economy/essay-the-growing-income-gap-in-the-u-s-harms-the-economy-20120927?page=1 http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/04/335840/study-shows-income-inequality-severely-hampers-economic-growth/ http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/05/28/great-gatsby-curve http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resources/our-publications/income-inequality-and-social-dysfunction 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Please don't think I am being snarky here, because I am genuinely wondering about this... I am seeing many people complain about the top one percent, but I'm wondering if you mean that entire group or if you are mainly referring to the top .01 percent as defined in articles like this one: http://www.forbes.com/sites/phildemuth/2013/11/25/are-you-rich-enough-the-terrible-tragedy-of-income-inequality-among-the-1/ Again, I'm not being argumentative; I'm trying to get a better idea of what people have in mind when they talk about "the rich." 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 No, but taxing them more sure could. :) Taxing them more never gets old. It is never enough. Until the rich have a tax rate higher than 100% it will never be enough to satisfy people. Maybe not even then. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JumpyTheFrog Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Taxing them more never gets old. It is never enough. Until the rich have a tax rate higher than 100% it will never be enough to satisfy people. Maybe not even then. I think nearly everyone here would rather corporations use some of their record profits to pay their regular employees more (and stop using so many "temporary" workers) instead of paying so much of it as ridiculous bonuses to their CEOs. This would satisfy most people far more than raising taxes. They need to stop blabbing about "there's a shortage of workers so we need to import more" when un- and under-employment have been so high for so long. I think most people would rather work at a job that pays more than need handouts. In fact, I have started to wonder if my family, rather than donating as much to charity as we used to, should use some of it to hire who really need the work. We had a young friend from a poor family starting law school and rather than give him some money directly we decided to pay extra for the yard work he did for us. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 I watched it the day it was posted. It was not news to me, not shocking, not really concerning. I explained why. You can agree or disagree. I don't believe wealthy people have an insidious plan to keep poor and working class people at the edge of starvation, as some seem to believe. I don't believe a substantial % of Americans are suffering with the inability to provide for their basic needs. I don't believe hating on rich people is going to improve the lot of the poor one iota. I think having such a negative attitude as a community actually shrinks the "pie." And no, I don't have a "link" for that, but it's not a mindset that is unique to me. As for that gini thing, I said I didn't understand it. Maybe someone would like to explain it to me, but again, I don't believe relative wealth is important. It may be interesting, but it doesn't make anyone happy or provide for anyone's needs. I would rather be "poor" in the USA than working-class in India. (No offense to Indians.) Again, I am not hating on anyone. But the disparity is sickening to me. The fact that it isn't to everyone is astounding to me. 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Please don't think I am being snarky here, because I am genuinely wondering about this... I am seeing many people complain about the top one percent, but I'm wondering if you mean that entire group or if you are mainly referring to the top .01 percent as defined in articles like this one: http://www.forbes.com/sites/phildemuth/2013/11/25/are-you-rich-enough-the-terrible-tragedy-of-income-inequality-among-the-1/ Again, I'm not being argumentative; I'm trying to get a better idea of what people have in mind when they talk about "the rich." Maybe I am not who you are talking to....because I am not exactly complaining about the rich. I am physically ill that some have so much and some have not even enough. For whatever the reason.....maybe someone works super hard and someone else is a slacker.....it is still very very disturbing to me. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Years ago I read about Ben and Jerry's ice cream company. They had a compensation model that was intriguing to me. The highest paid person would never make more than 5 times the lowest paid person. That went on for 16 years....until one of them retired and they could find no one willing to accept that compensation to replace him. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JumpyTheFrog Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 When people compain about "corporations," they generally mean large c-corps. Most people aren't aware that s-corps and other pass through types exist. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JumpyTheFrog Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Years ago I read about Ben and Jerry's ice cream company. They had a compensation model that was intriguing to me. The highest paid person would never make more than 5 times the lowest paid person. That went on for 16 years....until one of them retired and they could find no one willing to accept that compensation to replace him. Okay, so maybe 5x pay isn't enough, but certainly they could find someone decent for less than $20 million per year, right? I've read that the CEO:average worker ratio has gone up 10x or more since the 1970s. I have a hard time believing all large corps would find it impossible to find a halfway qualified CEO for say, $500k per year. Surely at least some of their employees would like to move their way up through the ranks. My understanding is that CEO pay and bonuses are set by the Board of Directors and that furthermore, board members tend to be "inbred" and all be on each other's boards and therefore vote for ridiculous pay for each other. If that in fact is the case, then we can't expect the board members to try to rein in this problem. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JumpyTheFrog Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Our country is so short sighted. So many of these CEOs only seem to worry about short-term stock prices, especially if their pay is tied to it. Who cares if the company goes under in five years? Who cares if they lay off all their good workers and ship the jobs overseas? I wonder if privately held companies think more long term. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joker Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 I live in a county that has 20% of its school children listed as homeless. Many of them live in tents within RV parks. I also have multi-million dollar homes almost directly across the street. Our home is only 1000 sq ft and well off that mark but the majority in our area are ridiculously priced. I send extra food in my dds' lunches so they can share because even those on free/reduced lunches are hungry after the dismal offerings. I see the starving and poor daily and they are impossible to ignore. I honestly can't fathom the idea that some don't see the starving or aren't aware of those suffering and in need. Based on my own experience, I would have to say you just aren't looking hard enough or are choosing to see something that isn't real. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 My point exactly. Let's not demonize all corporations, forgetting that many are really just people. Nor should we demonize "corporations" of any size, in general. We should judge by each corporate leader's or board's actions. There is nothing inherently wrong with corporations. And they do pay taxes, I don't know where anyone got the idea they don't. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laura Corin Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Gotta have the car to sell :) I know you know this Laura, so this comment is not really in response to you - but some people don't have assets they can liquidate to fund a move, nor do they have company support or savings. I guess it's a middle class thing to be able to move for work. Yes - like I said: in each case we either had savings or company sponsorship. For the first move, the car was the savings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 I live in a county that has 20% of its school children listed as homeless. Many of them live in tents within RV parks. I also have multi-million dollar homes almost directly across the street. Our home is only 1000 sq ft and well off that mark but the majority in our area are ridiculously priced. I send extra food in my dds' lunches so they can share because even those on free/reduced lunches are hungry after the dismal offerings. I see the starving and poor daily and they are impossible to ignore. I honestly can't fathom the idea that some don't see the starving or aren't aware of those suffering and in need. Based on my own experience, I would have to say you just aren't looking hard enough or are choosing to see something that isn't real. Nobody said there aren't poor people in the USA. What people are saying (or I am, at least) is that the US middle class is not poor. We have middle class people who are crying foul because they have some financial insecurity. IMO the people who don't understand US poverty (and especially global poverty) are the ones who earn a middle class income and insist that they are poor. It's just like the girl in the article the OP posted, implying her parents' upper-middle income is just enough to meet basic needs. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3in9th Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Nor should we demonize "corporations" of any size, in general. We should judge by each corporate leader's or board's actions. There is nothing inherently wrong with corporations. And they do pay taxes, I don't know where anyone got the idea they don't. Psst...http://werenotbrokemovie.com/the-film/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3in9th Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) nm Edited March 2, 2015 by Susan Wise Bauer Please argue rather than insulting. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greta Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Taxing them more never gets old. It is never enough. Until the rich have a tax rate higher than 100% it will never be enough to satisfy people. Maybe not even then. I think this is just plain wrong - I have never met anyone with this kind of attitude. Most people just want a fair shot. They want to feel like their efforts will pay off. But look at the direction the US is heading. Things have changed so much in just my lifetime (I'm 41, btw). When I was growing up, a middle class family could put their kids through the state school system. Now, people are starting out their adult lives with tremendous student loans, even for public colleges. It never occurred to me to worry that upon graduation I wouldn't find a job, never even entered my mind. But now being unemployed or underemployed upon graduation is practically the norm. On top of that, once you are employed, you cannot expect to receive decent benefits, a pension, or raises that keep up with inflation. And here's the real kicker. All of this is happening at the same time that the wealthiest most powerful people are getting wealthier and more powerful than they have ever been before. We're supposed to be happy that we're getting by at all, when we are getting by on less, while they get an even bigger piece of the pie. Personally, I am not for one second buying the argument that the 1% has gotten THAT much more industrious, clever, and productive, while the vast majority of Americans are doing that much LESS than they were before. I call bull. I don't claim to know how to fix the problem. But I'm astonished that you're arguing there isn't a problem. 23 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joker Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 I dunno, I honestly don't know one single American who is starving. I mean, I know there are people who live under the overpasses, but I don't think anyone would consider them "middle class." Several of the comments here seem to imply that the average American can't get enough to eat. Nobody said there aren't poor people in the USA. What people are saying (or I am, at least) is that the US middle class is not poor. We have middle class people who are crying foul because they have some financial insecurity. IMO the people who don't understand US poverty (and especially global poverty) are the ones who earn a middle class income and insist that they are poor. It's just like the girl in the article the OP posted, implying her parents' upper-middle income is just enough to meet basic needs. I was responding to the first quote here. I guess I'm confused by what you meant, then. Do you not consider those people Americans? I wasn't talking about people living under bridges. I'm talking about people living right in my neighborhoods. They are living in cars, tents, parks. These people go to school and go to work, yet they do not have enough to eat. I was simply astonished anyone would say they don't know any Americans who are starving as I seem to see plenty without even trying. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garga Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 I'm not defending it per se, but it is just a form of entertainment. If we are going to complain about such salaries, then we should also find fault with the highest paid actors, rock stars, etc. I do find fault with what we pay actors and rock stars. However, the actors and rock stars aren't being paid by college students who are attending a college for an education, not to watch movies or listen to music. Maybe you're referring to professional ball players. I'm referring to the colleges who divert tuition money to their sports program--tuition that would send the school into the stratosphere of providing an amazing education if they took the $3 milll from the football team and handed it over to the educational departments. Can you just imagine what a science lab at a college could do with all that money? It's sickening that one attends a college for an education and a large percentage of that tuition goes to the football coach. I'm hoping to send my kids to a college where the tuition is spend on their education and not on a football game. I don't want my education money going to games. ETA: Oh dear. Looks like the above is inaccurate. Some people below have since corrected me. I guess I've been under a rock thinking the tuition paid for the coach salaries. Carry on! Switching gears: The disparity is a problem and it takes but a small bit of study of history to see why. When the super rich have all the money it gets worse and worse for other 99% of the population and you end up with misery and poverty and revolutions. It just does. Maybe not for another 100 years here in America, but that's where it ends up. The cycle of history repeats itself over and over and over. It's pretty easy to predict when you look at it in hundreds of years and not from decade to decade. It's sad to see this disparity happening in our lifetimes. We're watching a democracy begin to crumble where the super rich are on their way to having everything and everyone else has close to nothing. We're not anywhere near as bad as it could get, of course, but it's clearly started. I wish I knew how to make it stop. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muttichen Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 My point exactly. Let's not demonize all corporations, forgetting that many are really just people. People who take risks and create jobs! Our economy isn't a zero-sum game. It's not like there's this set pile of money that we should divide more evenly. If you tax corporations more, there will be less growth and fewer jobs. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mom23Boys Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 I do find fault with what we pay actors and rock stars. However, the actors and rock stars aren't being paid by college students who are attending a college for an education, not to watch movies or listen to music. Maybe you're referring to professional ball players. I'm referring to the colleges who divert tuition money to their sports program--tuition that would send the school into the stratosphere of providing an amazing education if they took the $3 milll from the football team and handed it over to the educational departments. Can you just imagine what a science lab at a college could do with all that money? It's sickening that one attends a college for an education and a large percentage of that tuition goes to the football coach. I'm hoping to send my kids to a college where the tuition is spend on their education and not on a football game. I don't want my education money going to games. Switching gears: The disparity is a problem and it takes but a small bit of study of history to see why. When the super rich have all the money it gets worse and worse for other 99% of the population and you end up with misery and poverty and revolutions. It just does. Maybe not for another 100 years here in America, but that's where it ends up. The cycle of history repeats itself over and over and over. It's pretty easy to predict when you look at it in hundreds of years and not from decade to decade. It's sad to see this disparity happening in our lifetimes. We're watching a democracy begin to crumble where the super rich are on their way to having everything and everyone else has close to nothing. We're not anywhere near as bad as it could get, of course, but it's clearly started. I wish I knew how to make it stop. I bolded what I am responding to. The thing about football coaches salaries, and I would guess basketball too, is that not all of their salary is funded by the school. http://www.quora.com/Tuition-cost-of-a-freshman-at-the-University-of-Michigan-is-13-486-Jim-Harbaughs-salary-is-35-million-and-it-is-equivalent-to-tuition-for-about-2-595-freshman-35-000-000-13-486-2-595-28-Should-a-university-pay-a-football-coach-35-million-or-give-a-free-year-of-education-to-2-595-freshmen There is a certain amount that could be cut by the school, but they would still be making in the millions, at least at big schools. LSU is local to me and I graduated from there. We bleed purple and gold here (my dad was even the mascot for a few years in the 1980's). Tiger Stadium holds over 102,000. Almost every game is sold out. And tickets aren't cheap. There is a huge and active booster system which provides a lot of money. The money from the athletic department budget is paid back many times over. The article above is from Michigan, but it is probably fairly accurate for most big name schools, with various numbers. It is still insane how much money they make, but consumers, including me and my family, fund it. We don't have tickets, but we watch every single game on tv, which drives ratings up, which causes schools to be paid more for tv games and so on. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 What is needed to keep oneself and one's family in a condition to pursue work, relationships, and healthy interests. I know you are going to point out that your son's medical issue is not affordable to most people. I am sure you are correct. I think that kind of issue, which is uncommon, should be covered by the state (or the feds) regardless of income. Some states either do, or used to, cover certain chronic problems for all without income tests. We could afford this, especially if we stopped insisting on paying for stuff that is not as important. Her situation is NOT unusual. Not even a little bit. Yes the condition itself might be unusual, but no outrageous medical expenses are not unusual for the average American. They are the biggest cause of bankruptcy regardless of whether the person has state medical or private insurance. I agree we need genuinely universal healthcare, of which ACA (Obamacare) and Medicaid are NOT examples of. You are flat out in denial if you think there aren't millions of people in her same situation medically. The medical dx might vary, but the socioeconomic situation is frighteningly common. The numbers doing without is also scary and Imnsho a social disgrace in a country claiming first world status. 13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Please don't think I am being snarky here, because I am genuinely wondering about this... I am seeing many people complain about the top one percent, but I'm wondering if you mean that entire group or if you are mainly referring to the top .01 percent as defined in articles like this one: http://www.forbes.com/sites/phildemuth/2013/11/25/are-you-rich-enough-the-terrible-tragedy-of-income-inequality-among-the-1/ Again, I'm not being argumentative; I'm trying to get a better idea of what people have in mind when they talk about "the rich." For me, I don't necessarily think in terms of "the rich". For me this is far more simpler. X percent of people have a far far greater ability to create political and social change that could benefit our society. I believe they have a moral obligation to do so. I don't think they necessarily have some nefarious evil intent when they don't. I suspect they either have badly formed ideas of what is helpful and thus inadvertently do more damage or they are simply in denial or oblivious to these things. I don't think there is a financial number than disqualifies anyone from this. Even the poorest among us can help their fellow mankind and they should do so when an opportunity presents itself. For the wealthiest among us, they have far more opportunities to help that's why more expected of them. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornblower Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Corporations are not people, I don't care what the Supreme Court ruled & yes, I am aware that many small businesses choose to incorporate & that this is a wise financial decision in many circumstances.... But corporations are still not people.This is a system based on greed. Oh you can call it hard work & job creation blah blah blah but when disparity is that huge, it's greed. You're setting up a new peasantry with income inequalities as huge as in medieval times and just dressing it up in different ideas about what makes it right. Privilege is privilege, whether you call it god given social class or access to lawmakers who continually set policies in your favor. The revolving doors between many industries & the government agencies which are supposed to be regulating them for the good of the whole are absurd.I think it's pretty inevitable that we'll end up with continued extremism and eventual revolutions if all this doesn't change. 14 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Nobody said there aren't poor people in the USA. What people are saying (or I am, at least) is that the US middle class is not poor. We have middle class people who are crying foul because they have some financial insecurity. IMO the people who don't understand US poverty (and especially global poverty) are the ones who earn a middle class income and insist that they are poor. It's just like the girl in the article the OP posted, implying her parents' upper-middle income is just enough to meet basic needs. Yes, the middle class is not poor. That's pretty much the definition of middle class. That they are not of the lower class, the poor. The problem is there is very little middle class left. The majority of citizens are NOT middle class. Thus, your harping about middle class not being poor is nonsense. Politically we say middle class bc it sounds really bad to say the numbers are BS. Fact is there are people classified as "middle class" who qualify for food stamps. We can dicker that they are working poor middle class or lower middle class, but that's all crap bc the one thing I hope we all do agree on is that anyone working full time and classified as working class or any type of middle class should not be so food insecure as to need food stamps. Maybe we don't agree on that? If so, we'll just have to agree to disagree then. And to add insult to injury, there is a huge stigma to being poor and or needing subsidies/welfare. It is extremely unlikely someone is going to tell you they didn't eat breakfast or lunch. They say they are dieting or not hungry or just don't mention it. They train their kids to do the same bc they are worried they will have their kids taken away bc they can't provide better. (They shouldn't have to worry about that. But they do. It just is that way.) They don't discuss not having rent money or choosing between electric or water bill. These are things many people don't discuss. They go to work, they go to school, they silently go about their struggles. 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regentrude Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 I'm referring to the colleges who divert tuition money to their sports program--tuition that would send the school into the stratosphere of providing an amazing education if they took the $3 milll from the football team and handed it over to the educational departments. Can you just imagine what a science lab at a college could do with all that money? It's sickening that one attends a college for an education and a large percentage of that tuition goes to the football coach. I'm hoping to send my kids to a college where the tuition is spend on their education and not on a football game. I don't want my education money going to games. I am not a fan of college sports, but I believe the above is inaccurate: tuition does NOT fund athletics. There are other issues with college sports, but this is not one of them. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brehon Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 I am not a fan of college sports, but I believe the above is inaccurate: tuition does NOT fund athletics. There are other issues with college sports, but this is not one of them. True. In fact, in a lot of Div I universities a portion of the revenue the major sport team (usually football or b-ball) brings in via TV, tickets, etc is used to fund the other men's and women's sports. I know this is true at my alma mater - a HUGE, HUGE football school - and other Div I colleges/universities. Like Regentrude, I believe there are myriad issues with college sports; the funding isn't necessarily one of them. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyJoy Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Ha! Coaching salaries! You do not want to know the answer to that question. The highest paid faculty members at MSU and U of MI are making roughly $136,000 - $150,000 if an article in Forbes is to be trusted. Meanwhile, the head football coach is getting $5.5 million a year topped by MSU's coach who gets $6 million, and U of Alabama's $7.2 million. Yep. I went to a private Christian school where the sports teams were not even top notch and bringing in revenue and the baseball coach made 3-4x what a 10-year professor made :( The topic came up in my business marketing class and the professor, who knew the school's finances intimately, shared this with us. We talked a lot about building a gated community for the profs as many had to live in apartments or commute large distances to afford housing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 The linked article was poorly organized, and poorly written. The bolded is insulting to the more than 40 million Americans who face food insecurity. Some of those are fellow board members. I'm one of those. Well, I was. My kids will have symptoms related to food insecurity for a very long time. I see evidence of it almost daily. I've had a decent compensation situation since November of 2014, and I still cry at the grocery store in relief that I don't NEED to count every penny and put things back. How DOES a mother choose between apples and bread? 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Χά�ων Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 Her situation is NOT unusual. Not even a little bit. Yes the condition itself might be unusual, but no outrageous medical expenses are not unusual for the average American. They are the biggest cause of bankruptcy regardless of whether the person has state medical or private insurance. I agree we need genuinely universal healthcare, of which ACA (Obamacare) and Medicaid are NOT examples of. You are flat out in denial if you think there aren't millions of people in her same situation medically. The medical dx might vary, but the socioeconomic situation is frighteningly common. The numbers doing without is also scary and Imnsho a social disgrace in a country claiming first world status. Typing from my phone and reply got lost. Thank you. Every single one of us is just a car accident away from life changing and overwhelming medical expenses. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 Typing from my phone and reply got lost. Thank you. Every single one of us is just a car accident away from life changing and overwhelming medical expenses. Tell me about it. I thought the whole "personal injury" thing was a scam for lawyers. I had NO actual understanding of the life impact of being suddenly without income, having crazy medical bills, trauma and related symptoms. This list is longer, but I will stop there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3in9th Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 I think it's pretty inevitable that we'll end up with continued extremism and eventual revolutions if all this doesn't change. You know, I thought this, too, until very, very recently. Now I think it'll be more of a civil war because of the sort of extremism I see from some of my Facebook friends and the state legislations and ignoring of Obama's executive orders- Alabama's judge refusing to allow gay marriage, Texas refusing to recognize Obama's immigrant order, Oklahoma making laws regarding AP American History. We've seen on this thread what links some will do to deny that wealth and income inequality even exist and the more the Mid-Atlantic, Northeast, and far West move toward progressive action to address this, the more the rest of the country will double down and blame liberalism. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 Typing from my phone and reply got lost. Thank you. Every single one of us is just a car accident away from life changing and overwhelming medical expenses. I cannot agree with this more. We are blessed with an attorney who came through and made the parties pay that were supposed to pay. For many people, they will not have nor can afford such an advocate. One accident away from homelessness and hunger. PSA. DON'T TEXT AND DRIVE!!!! You are a lethal road enemy if you do. Pull over, take your call, or give your message, then get back on the road. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 You know, I thought this, too, until very, very recently. Now I think it'll be more of a civil war because of the sort of extremism I see from some of my Facebook friends and the state legislations and ignoring of Obama's executive orders- Alabama's judge refusing to allow gay marriage, Texas refusing to recognize Obama's immigrant order, Oklahoma making laws regarding AP American History. We've seen on this thread what links some will do to deny that wealth and income inequality even exist and the more the Mid-Atlantic, Northeast, and far West move toward progressive action to address this, the more the rest of the country will double down and blame liberalism. Hmm. I have not seen a denial that wealth and income inequality exisit. It has always existed. And it always will. I have seen a few deny that it's really all that bad for the bottom 80% bc well at least we aren't in a third world country. (Uh. 'Kay. Talk about low bars for social goals. Damn us for expecting more I guess?) However, I'm not sure what you mean by double down and blame liberalism. I live in the Midwest. I don't see a denial of the disappearing middle class. I see a huge disconnect and frustration with feeling like (Tho it is not always actually the case) the coastal states to the east and west get to make laws that are culturally and politically and sometimes physically at odds with the states in the middle. You lump a lot into your post. Immigrants, religion in history, and gay marriage... All of which is rather off topic. Civil war and Revolution are the same thing. For example, the American Revolution was actually a civil war. The colonist were British citizens. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.