Income inequality has been on the rise for decades. In the last 30 years, the wages of the top 1% have grown by 154%, while the bottom 90% has seen growth of only 17%. As the rungs of the economic.
Income Inequality Impairs the American Dream of Upward Mobility
Why, oh why can’t liberals understand that the economy is not a zero-sum
game? Wealth is constantly being *created*, which is why the standard of
living in nearly every part of the world has increased so dramatically in
the past 150 years.
So do you all see the chicken and egg problem?
Is it that the masses have more money, and are then able to buy more goods,
causing businesses to have to expand and hire more people?
or
Is it that businesses paid them well, causing them to have more money, and
were then able to buy the goods that causes other businesses to expand?
The last I checked, the masses don’t just pull money out of thier a@#!!!
The debaters for the motion were absolutely horrible. This debate should
have been shattered for the motion. Ugh this truly makes me mad.
Who cares, it doesn’t matter. Fuck the rich and the poor. The only thing
that matters is freedom to produce. You fucks who want income equality are
only thieves who want government to steal from those who produce and give
it to those who don’t. The caveat is some companies get rich by
illegitiment means, for example, government giving them money.
A key issue that is not addressed is the definition of “upward mobility.” I
think a reasonable definition is “rising from a lower to a higher
socioeconomic class or status.”
The “size of the pie argument” fails because, even though it may be true
that incomes have risen over time (the pie has gotten bigger), the amount
of money one needs to earn to “move upwardly” has grown disproportionately
to that income growth.
I wish our representatives debated like this
Well that wasn’t shocking given the audience.
@ 8:02 the presenter asks to have his “IFP” lowered , anybody know what
that is? is the the voice in his ear piece or something? just curious
Of course this is an extremely short sighted debate. I do side with the
motion, but on the long term, and that is probably within the next 50
years, life on planet earth will become unbearable because of the politics
of growth at all cost. These people are actually arguing whether or not a
system that is clearly wrong, and has reached the limit of the planet, is
impairing upward mobility. Yes it is, but guess what? Even if we fix things
and lift what we call the “working poor” into middle class, in 50 years
still have no fish in the ocean, huge amount a pollution and an even bigger
climate change problem. Nice fighting windmill debate, though. I really do
love the fact that Edward Conard’s name sound like asshole in French.
(Connard)
The vast majority of the wealth in the US was created not by productivity,
but by the ponzi scheme that is the Federal Reserve . how economists do not
factor in $20 trillion of debt (and this is just the amount that is known)
as the imaginary source of the US wealth is fascinating. It leads the
economic enslavement by imaginary debt.
Most families now are struggling to survive with two working parents to
ridiculous debt loads that are entirely the result of fiat usury by
private banking.
I thought the gentleman on the far right side was quite eloquent, even
though I disagreed with him on some points, much more so than his partner.
Holy shit this is almost unbearing to listen to because alot of the times
when he uses “s” he whistles it.
The primary statistical contention in this debate appears to be the
assertion that countries with a more equitable distribution of wealth still
rank about the same as America in terms of economic mobility. Judging by
some of the comments on here, many people against the motion think that
this one statistic is definitive proof that the ‘pro’ side lost the debate.
But if, ceteris paribus, a more egalitarian distribution of wealth does not
promote *nor hinder* economic mobility, then wouldn’t the more egalitarian
distribution still be more favourable?
Moreover, if economic mobility is such a stagnant state regardless of
wealth redistribution, then would it not make sense to reduce the
extremities so that fewer people will remain stagnant in both the lower and
upper classes?
I really like IntelligenceSquared but I think the moderator is way too
aggressive and I have noticed that in a number of debates.
What’s yours is mine. What’s that? You don’t want me to steal from you?
Well I claim I own the product of my labor and deserve it! It’s not theft,
it’s just taxation/fairness!
Customers do not decide what people get paid! Customers decide what they
are willing to spend for a product. The businesses take the profits and
decide how they will distribute them among employees and investors. The
data clearly show that the people at the top who make these decisions are
increasingly inclined to give themselves and their investors a larger
percentage of the income while the line workers and middle management
receive a smaller percentage.
I’d love to see an analysis of Board pay per million USD of revenue in US
companies and compare that to the Boards in more socialist countries. I
mean if the argument is that US CEOs get more money than EU CEOs because
they sell more, we should be able to make an easy comparison. Of course, I
think the whole comparison is silly – you get paid less in Europe but you
get more holiday, less worry (more job security and “free” healthcare) and
a life outside of work. You know who could have earned a shit load more
than Bill Gates and Mark Zukerberg? Tim Berniers-Lee. What did he and CERN
choose to do? Gave the internet to the world for free.
This moderator has really bad manners. When addressing questions to both
parties he literary makes them explain the same facts all over again
several times. And it was worse when he started taking questions from the
audience. It would be a much better and meaningful debate if we get to hear
what people actually mean with their speeches and questions. He is losing
too much time interrupting everybody.
We really, really have to prevent people from redefining income inequality
as a problem caused by the increased revenue of the top earners.
We couldn’t care less what the top earners make as long as conditions for
the lower income shares of the population had improved as well. However,
when you see that a huge share of the population is struggling while a
select few look down from their ivory tower, and that the lowest door into
that tower is a dozen feet above the tallest ladder available, then you
start getting suspicious.
The problem is dead cash… the rich don’t spend their money and the
economy gets anemia.
Why did no one compare the first half of the 20th century (when income
inequality was very large) with the data we are seeing today?
I never knew he was John Donvan
A couple of things that have hurt the American Middle Class:
1. The loss of Manufacturing Jobs. Manufacturing is the mechanism that has
propelled the wealth of the middle class.
2. Immigration- We have imported tens of millions of immigrants whose net
effect is to drive wages down.
The American Dream and Success are objective concepts. Although we use an
economic ladder of stratification to measure the growth of wealth
generally/collectively; it also can and should be utilized to assess
individual financial progression. Income inequality has undoubtedly
increased, but whether it’s an impairing expansion is a matter of
perspective. Going from unemployed to employed, receiving a small raise or
promotion is upward mobility and can be personally defined as obtainment of
the American Dream.