In response to:

Income "Inequality"

cashe Wrote: Dec 12, 2013 5:22 AM
Income inequality is a favorite whipping boy of concervatives like Mr Thomas. It is, however, an economic metric that economists take very seriously. If the economy gets out of balance with a few rich, lots of poor, and a tiny middle class, some form of marxism will follow as day follows night.
upside22 Wrote: Dec 12, 2013 9:48 AM
You are a total and utter fool for listening to the canards put forth by Marxist Democrats like Obama.

1) Much of the income disparity today is cause by nothing more that straight demographics. As the population ages and the capital investments the older citizens have made matures (e.g. 401k's, Roth IRA's, etc) there is going to be a decided shift of income growth away from the younger cohorts to the older cohorts

2) For more than 60 years, the Marxist Democrats have been celebrating and promoting single woman households as "equal" to married households. There is simply no way a single parent household, in aggregate at least, can be as successful as a married household when it comes to income. A two-parent household can have both parents working. A two-parent household can allow one parent to concentrate on increasing income by spending more time at work or in training for advanced skills.

Bottom line? The income disparity we see today *is* the result of Marxist Democrat policies. Those policies have led to the breakdown of the nuclear family and to a permanent underclass dependent on government handouts for survival.
Tacitus X Wrote: Dec 12, 2013 7:56 AM
It depend on the reasons for the inequality. Most of the poor are so because of a welfare system that encourages sloth and harmful behavior. Some of the wealthy are so because they are connected to powerful government interests that have showered them with money looted from taxpayers. On the other hand, some of the wealthy are so because they are super-productive. If the middle class is shrinking one doesn't have to look very far to see the culprit - counter-productive government policies.
Don't Tread On Me3 Wrote: Dec 12, 2013 7:35 AM
So you think Marxism is a bad thing?

Most of the proposals I see for addressing "income inequality" are Marxist, or some flavor of totalitarian kleptocracy at least. The whole premise is generally used to promote Marxism, fascism, or some kind of totalitarianism.

If the middle class is vanishing, in the sense of workers and entrepreneurs in private enterprise, it is because of incentives created by government policy for squeezing them out. Supply & demand applies to labor, and when there is a HUGE supply of lo-skilled labor, and low marginal value for its work product, people working in that category aren't going to make much.

Furthermore, many of the "rich" over which there is so much angst, and the real targets of tax-hike schemes, are not the Warren Buffet hyperwealthy friends-of-the-elite-political-class, but upper-upper middle class professional and managers who make $$$ doing demanding in-demand jobs few can do.