Can you explain why?

[888888]

In the last 20 years.

the middle class income has stayed level. It has not grown over a long period of time, even though inflation has. Hasn't grown in the past 10+ years of 20% productivity gains. Hasn't grown even though people are required to get more education.

But then you look at the 10% of those at the top of the income levels and they have gained 300% over that same time. Are they just better workers, or are they smarter? They haven't created anything, they haven't made the productivity gains. But they sure have gotten all the gravy. HOW COME?


Please tell us how this is done, how do you justify this, at the same time your asking these people to work for less, get less benefits, and pay for retirement and health ins which was once paid for by the companies.

One group of people are asked to tighten the belt, do more and get less and the people who are asking for this to happen have gotten 300% more income.

 

[mark14]

Because the Mexicans are stealing our jobs.

 

[888888]

Because the Mexicans are stealing our jobs.

Thats fine, but why are those at the top gaining so much? If all the work is being done by Mexicans, then why such big gains for people at the top here?
You don't have an answer do you, didn't think so.

 

[Jen]

That is because everything always falls upon the shoulders of the middle class. If the poor get poorer, the middle class must find a way to support them (blood from a turnip, so to speak). The rich have ways of sheltering their money and always will have those ways no matter what.

However, many people in the middle class and even some of the lower rich people were given very nice retirement packages from their companies. When the leading edge of baby boomers started retiring, it was realized that a huge sum of money would have to be paid out for these luxurious retirement packages and with workers retiring, it was going to be hard to come up with that money.

Add into that that the bulk of the baby boomers haven't even begun to unload on the system yet. Many people born in the late 1940's haven't retired yet........ and at some point there will be a huge bunch of them all suddenly expecting Social Security or other retirement payments. Most of those people will be middle class and not be rich enough to live without their retirement that they expect and deserve and were promised.

And then, although Liberals would rather not talk about it, since 1973, there have been over 35 million abortions performed in this country. That is 35 million people who would now either be in the work force or be coming into it. We do not have their taxes to add to the money we need to support our billowing retirement group. Of course that's may not be enough to support the 75.8 million baby boomers born (deaths not accounted for in that number) but it certainly would have helped if some of those 35 million people were still in the work force.

Just saying.

Obviously the answer isn't an easy one............but I tried to give you some food for thought.
Here's a baby boomer statistics link:
http://www.bbhq.com/bomrstat.htm

 

[888888]

Jen you just spent 2000 letters saying absolutly nothing as to why the middle class wages have stayed the same and the top 10/15% have shown gains of 300%.

How is this fair, how can it be? Why is falling on the middle class to pay for the cost of the poor, when there isn't a big difference between the two. And really we turned this into an abortion issue, saying that if we only had 35 million more people who wouldn't have a job is the answer to something.

Just explain if you can why the top have shown 300% gains, people like you and people who live in the neighbor hood that you came from have stayed close to 0%. Are you(people like you) that smart that you do something that much better that you would deserve this?

 

[Jen]

Thank you for counting my letters. I'm sure it was a tedious job. But someone had to do it. Kudos to you.

Jen you just spent 2000 letters saying absolutly nothing as to why the middle class wages have stayed the same and the top 10/15% have shown gains of 300%.

How is this fair, how can it be? Why is falling on the middle class to pay for the cost of the poor, when there isn't a big difference between the two. And really we turned this into an abortion issue, saying that if we only had 35 million more people who wouldn't have a job is the answer to something.

Just explain if you can why the top have shown 300% gains, people like you and people who live in the neighbor hood that you came from have stayed close to 0%. Are you(people like you) that smart that you do something that much better that you would deserve this?

 

[888888]

I lied, I didn't count them, just guessed, but I knew it made no difference what I wrote I would not get an answer that deals with the question asked.

went back and did a quick accounting and I think it was closer to 2100. lol

 

[Lukey]

Yes! For one thing, health insurance policy increases (as well as other mandated employment costs and benefits) have increased, so the cost to an employer of employing the average Joe HAS continued to increase throughout the past 20 years. And the higher paid (knowledge) worker can produce way more per hour thanks to technology while the unionized factory worker, the maid and the burger flipper can still only churn out (roughly) the same number of cars, cleaned rooms and burgers as they could 20 years ago. This doesn't sit well with Marxists so you guys ignore the facts and decide it is "theft" so you can justify taking from the more productive members of society and giving it to the have nots. Same as it (Marxism) ever was...

 

[UPNYA2]

"Can you explain why?
In the last 20 years.

the middle class income has stayed level. It has not grown over a long period of time, even though inflation has. Hasn't grown in the past 10+ years of 20% productivity gains. Hasn't grown even though people are required to get more education."

Yes, I can, but you ain't gonna want to accept it.......

The middle class income has stayed level because of the people. Let me elaborate.

Those entering the workforce in that time frame were the first of what we call the "Participation Generation". That is to say those who grew up in life receiving the same rewards for participating as those who actually worked hard and excelled at something. School, youth sports, whatever, rather than reward some EVERYONE got trophies, right? Heck, don't even keep score, can't have some thinking they might be the "losers" and others the 'winners", get it yet?

So now, when they move on in life they EXPECT the same awards, the same rewards, just for being there, for participating..............

It used to be that MOST tried to excel, not just participate. Now, not so much.

When one was used to working harder, trying to always do better in life, even IF they didn't move from middle class to "rich" they WOULD naturally be in the UPPER percentile of "the middle".

That has faded.

NOW, more and more are just "participating", doing just enough. Not trying hard to do better. So more and more remain toward the lower percentile of "the middle". AND, more and more who are participating are seeing those who participate none, who do less or nothing, having just about the same rewards and they then decide it would be easier to also not participate and still get some reward rather that continue to participate some for only a little more. In the past some of those who worked hard yet remain among "the poor", at least had something more than a minimum, were "upper poor" until their work moved them into "the middle", raising the numbers in "the middle".

NOW fewer among the poor are willing to work hard enough to move up to "the middle", actually opt to do less which brings the average of wealth held by the poor DOWN.

Some who work harder and excel actually leave "the middle" and join the dreaded, "rich".

Thus the numbers of the "poor" increases, the averages in "the middle" decrease.


So, lets say that there is one big "pie-of-wealth" available.........

There are fewer in the "upper poor" range, more in the "lower poor" range, therefore less of the total wealth.

There are fewer in the "upper middle" range, more in the "lower middle" range ", therefore less of the total wealth.

It stands to reason that the rest of the pie is where?


Hate it for you but the truth is there simply are fewer and fewer people throughout our society who feel compelled to work harder and do more. Too many of them have been raised to believe that they deserve what those who do excel have, just for showing up.

And life in the REAL world, doesn't agree.

 

[Citizen]

In the last 20 years.

the middle class income has stayed level. It has not grown over a long period of time, even though inflation has. Hasn't grown in the past 10+ years of 20% productivity gains. Hasn't grown even though people are required to get more education.

But then you look at the 10% of those at the top of the income levels and they have gained 300% over that same time. Are they just better workers, or are they smarter? They haven't created anything, they haven't made the productivity gains. But they sure have gotten all the gravy. HOW COME?


Please tell us how this is done, how do you justify this, at the same time your asking these people to work for less, get less benefits, and pay for retirement and health ins which was once paid for by the companies.

One group of people are asked to tighten the belt, do more and get less and the people who are asking for this to happen have gotten 300% more income.

I can tell you exactly why.

The rich are capable of buying thier own politicians & they write the laws now & they write the nations labout policies. So they make sure they can TAKE anything & everything & they create hate & discontent among the workers to keep us focused on fighting with each other, while they (the rich & powerfull) rape & pliage the workers of America.

Pretty simple when you think about it.

 

[mark14]

Quote Originally Posted by mark14 View Post
Because the Mexicans are stealing our jobs.

Thats fine, but why are those at the top gaining so much? If all the work is being done by Mexicans, then why such big gains for people at the top here?
You don't have an answer do you, didn't think so.

Can't spot a joke when you hear one anymore . See what the right wing nuts have done to us.

 

[OldGaffer]

"Can you explain why?
In the last 20 years.

the middle class income has stayed level. It has not grown over a long period of time, even though inflation has. Hasn't grown in the past 10+ years of 20% productivity gains. Hasn't grown even though people are required to get more education."

Yes, I can, but you ain't gonna want to accept it.......

The middle class income has stayed level because of the people. Let me elaborate.

Those entering the workforce in that time frame were the first of what we call the "Participation Generation". That is to say those who grew up in life receiving the same rewards for participating as those who actually worked hard and excelled at something. School, youth sports, whatever, rather than reward some EVERYONE got trophies, right? Heck, don't even keep score, can't have some thinking they might be the "losers" and others the 'winners", get it yet?

So now, when they move on in life they EXPECT the same awards, the same rewards, just for being there, for participating..............

It used to be that MOST tried to excel, not just participate. Now, not so much.

When one was used to working harder, trying to always do better in life, even IF they didn't move from middle class to "rich" they WOULD naturally be in the UPPER percentile of "the middle".

That has faded.

NOW, more and more are just "participating", doing just enough. Not trying hard to do better. So more and more remain toward the lower percentile of "the middle". AND, more and more who are participating are seeing those who participate none, who do less or nothing, having just about the same rewards and they then decide it would be easier to also not participate and still get some reward rather that continue to participate some for only a little more. In the past some of those who worked hard yet remain among "the poor", at least had something more than a minimum, were "upper poor" until their work moved them into "the middle", raising the numbers in "the middle".

NOW fewer among the poor are willing to work hard enough to move up to "the middle", actually opt to do less which brings the average of wealth held by the poor DOWN.

Some who work harder and excel actually leave "the middle" and join the dreaded, "rich".

Thus the numbers of the "poor" increases, the averages in "the middle" decrease.


So, lets say that there is one big "pie-of-wealth" available.........

There are fewer in the "upper poor" range, more in the "lower poor" range, therefore less of the total wealth.

There are fewer in the "upper middle" range, more in the "lower middle" range ", therefore less of the total wealth.

It stands to reason that the rest of the pie is where?


Hate it for you but the truth is there simply are fewer and fewer people throughout our society who feel compelled to work harder and do more. Too many of them have been raised to believe that they deserve what those who do excel have, just for showing up.

And life in the REAL world, doesn't agree.

A pure social darwinist answer, I did not expect anything less.

 

[UPNYA2]

A pure social darwinist answer, I did not expect anything less.

Truth hurts.

If you do not wish to read the views and opinions of others may I suggest you refrain from venturing into threads where someone asks others something.

Stick to threads where those whose views and opinions you share post statements, seeking only to be stroked lovingly by others such as yourself.

Fair enough?

 

[Corruptbuddha]

Quite simple.

Labor costs for most companies have dropped through the floor due to off shoring and outsourcing.

If you want to find the culprit for the decline of the middle class, look no further than the so called 'free trade' agreements.

 

[PhilFish]

Principally they are (in no particular order)

1. we allowed (our elected constituency) to get away with it.
2. we've abandoned the notion of quality, favoring cheap goods over durable (read as: why does grandmas toaster from 1950 still work today...?)
3. the consumer has driven the above. as has technology. (read as: why do I have to buy a new cellphone ever 6 months? or do I???)
4. offshoring, to meet the cost ratios of 2 and 3. and 6, below.
5. see 1.
6. the internet age has made huge swaths of shareholders...dependent on yield...for all thigs from 401ks to mutual funds, etc.. gone are pensions, etc. (see 1 and 2 above)

please feel free to augment..(and I dare anyone to do so without referencing dem or con....just for shits, giggles, and a play for civility.....for a change..)

 

[CatsEye]

Principally they are (in no particular order)

1. we allowed (our elected constituency) to get away with it.
2. we've abandoned the notion of quality, favoring cheap goods over durable (read as: why does grandmas toaster from 1950 still work today...?)
3. the consumer has driven the above. as has technology. (read as: why do I have to buy a new cellphone ever 6 months? or do I???)
4. offshoring, to meet the cost ratios of 2 and 3. and 6, below.
5. see 1.
6. the internet age has made huge swaths of shareholders...dependent on yield...for all thigs from 401ks to mutual funds, etc.. gone are pensions, etc. (see 1 and 2 above)

please feel free to augment..(and I dare anyone to do so without referencing dem or con....just for shits, giggles, and a play for civility.....for a change..)

7. income tax rate cuts on high incomes
8. capital gains tax cuts
9. extravagant pay for top executives (some who have ruined their company)
10. deregulation of financial markets

Here's an article detailing some of the possible reasons for the inquality.