Not sure if this goes here or other side--Who gets how much pie?

[anonymouse1]

When it's laid out visually like this, it's disturbing:

https://twitter.com/CBSThisMorning/statu...0413905921

Mods, feel free to move if appropriate.....

[mikebw]

Mmmm, rich people pie!

[M A V I C]

Then look at income distribution, and where that income comes from.

[jdc]

Apparently we are all greedy cause ""...lowest 20% in America live lives that are the envy of the world."

[anonymouse1]

Interesting. Why did you choose that metric?

jdc wrote:
Apparently we are all greedy cause ""...lowest 20% in America live lives that are the envy of the world."

[bfd]

Mostly it just shows how mathematically/economically illiterate their sample of the population is… and that's exactly what keeps things the way they are.

[jdc]

anonymouse1 wrote:
Interesting. Why did you choose that metric?

[quote=jdc]
Apparently we are all greedy cause ""...lowest 20% in America live lives that are the envy of the world."

I just saw it in the comments. whataboutism. Learned at an early age. although political base (since whataboutism is based), a good description from john oliver: https://youtu.be/1ZAPwfrtAFY?t=374

[testcase]

I find it interesting that the young Caucasian female volunteered that she STARTED OUT at the lowest level. Obviously she has moved up the ladder (I suspect by WORKING). There will ALWAYS be people who “do better” than others. Taxing these “achievers” will basically get them to “vote with their feet”. At least some will take their talents OUT of a place that steals the fruits of their labors and redistributes assets they worked for, to deadbeat “oh poor me” welfare leaches.

[vision63]

Is the overall amount of all funds available ever a factor? If the one percent is controlling 50% of $1000 dollars then the 99% split $500. If the one percent controls $1,000,000 then the available population is left with much more.

I'm not missing any meals so.... how can I function if there is no money?

[numbered]

Historically, the issue with inequality is not the instantaneous situation today so much as the way the system moves into the future. More concentrated wealth tends to accumulate political power, and encourage more concentration. The markets get "rigged", the government is 'captured', and the situation gets worse. As more people despair (why do you think people are economically frustrated at 4% unemployment?) politics becomes more fraught. From Rome to present day, this process has turned into revolution or war on a fairly consistent basis.

The Piketty book from a couple of years ago said that the wealthiest never know when to quit, and it takes a catastrophe of some kind (say, a World War) to reset the system. He proposed instead a wealth tax to slow this process. (Note that philanthropy is never enough either.)

The question the economists pose is not about incentives (which is where conservatives go to argue this point.) They instead ask, 'how much is enough?'

(Note that macro theory points out that wealth accumulation is a disincentive to growth because savings are not reinvested and rich people cannot buy enough to pump money back into the economy.)