Contradictions Regarding U.S. Economy

245

Comments

  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    don't gimme no wrote:
    There are many, many people who don't have the opportunities to invest in 401k. That's kinda the point. Companies are filtering the increased income to the top execs and not the average workers.


    Everyone can invest in a Roth and an IRA, though. It's essentially the same thing without the matching. My companies have never matched that much anyway.

    You're fixating on the details and not the main point that there is plenty of opportunity out there for people willing to forego debt and interest payments and just do a bit of regular investing.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    ArmsinaV wrote:
    Well, my point is that even as public school teacher, with sound investing and a Roth IRA, I should be able to retire as a millionaire. (barring a market collapse) And if I leave $250,000 to my kids (or whatever the amount) and they invest that wisely, my family could very easily be wealthy in a few generations through compound interest. I

    It's not impossible, and I would say that inherited money was earned. The "Paris Hilton" question is not if it's earned, I'd say if it's deserved. I think a lot of people who may complain about her being rich think, basically, because they dont' think she or others deserve it. They don't think it's fair and that attitude doesn't seem to do much good for me. I don't care about uber rich people. I don't care if they make 1000 times more than me.

    Now, granted many people are not born with a same amount of chance to succeed statistically. But that doesn't mean it's the faulf of an evil CEO. Statisically, a broken family is by far more important than almost anything else in determining if a child will get a "fair" shake. So what do we do about that? What can the state do?

    I think more market-friendly candidates on either side should get together with their rich business partners and come up with a massive plan to spread financial education in communities that really need it. Those kind of things can truly spread wealth. People need to be empowered to not fall into the trap of spending more money than they have, which is a truly American trademark. I know, I know, "how can you invest when you can barely pay the bills?" That, to me, is not the problem. If people truly knew how to manage money, not fall victim to compound interest and make it work FOR you over time, they could make huge strides over shorter periods of time.

    i agree with you. all you need is a start. i worked 2 to 3 jobs for 20 years to get ahead. i really didn't HAVE to work but i did. my grandfather made a killing making illegal wiskey during prohibition. when walgreens was about to go public on the stock market; he bought thousands of shares.
    some people take pride in doing something themselves. you don't see that much anymore. people would rather complain. boo hoo; i can't succeed because i'm black. yet hospitals are full of black doctors; courtrooms full of black lawyers; and yes; a black man running for president. so it seems a black man can be successful if he puts his mind to it.
    you'll never get rich by working alone. working is a poor mans game. you either need to find people to do the work and pay them a percentage of what you collect for the work; or you need to have your money work for you. now and then people will get lucky; but that's not very often.
  • Eliot Rosewater
    Eliot Rosewater Posts: 2,659
    know1 wrote:
    Everyone can invest in a Roth and an IRA, though. It's essentially the same thing without the matching. My companies have never matched that much anyway.

    You're fixating on the details and not the main point that there is plenty of opportunity out there for people willing to forego debt and interest payments and just do a bit of regular investing.
    I would argue that you're using the word "plenty" quite loosely. But opportunity is out there, I'll give you that. It's just very biased already and favors the rich.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    don't gimme no wrote:
    I would argue that you're using the word "plenty" quite loosely. But opportunity is out there, I'll give you that. It's just very biased already and favors the rich.

    I don't think so. My Roth basically cost $35 to open and then you pay the load (about 5%) out of what you are investing. That wouldn't seem to favor the rich very much.

    The cool thing with the Roth is that you can pull out the money you put into it when/if you need it. It's the growth that would get penalized if withdrawn. Put it in growth stock mutual funds with long track records and pull in about 12% interest per year. The money doubles in under 7 years without even adding to it.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • Uncle Leo
    Uncle Leo Posts: 1,059
    ArmsinaV wrote:
    Well, my point is that even as public school teacher, with sound investing and a Roth IRA, I should be able to retire as a millionaire. (barring a market collapse) And if I leave $250,000 to my kids (or whatever the amount) and they invest that wisely, my family could very easily be wealthy in a few generations through compound interest. I

    All I am saying is that your kids did not earn that $250,000 any more than your kids' friends "earned" their finanically inept parents who are going to leave them nothing but a funeral bill. I don't begrudge your kids that. Hell, my parents paid for my entire college tuition.
    I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    don't gimme no wrote:
    I would argue that you're using the word "plenty" quite loosely. But opportunity is out there, I'll give you that. It's just very biased already and favors the rich.
    Who cares if it favors the rich. As someone mentioned the poor are getting richer as well, just at a slower rate. Happiness is not found in wealth so by comparing their financials gains to a rich person's financial gains is just playing a version of keeping up with the Joneses. Which is really all about trying to find happiness and esteem through consumption. Talk about a dead end.

    I seriously couldn't come within $10K of guessing how much I make. Not that I make a lot but that I don't care. I make enought for the lifestyle I want, which is far from extravagant. I don't have cable, I drive a very basic car that friends tell me is beneath me, I try to stay in hostels or camp while travelling. I know I could make a lot more than I do but am not willing to make the sacrifice to my life outside of work to do so. I make enough to be happy. I live within my means. I save for retirement. I laugh lots. At that point I don't care what the CEO makes. My esteem is not found in comparing income or consumption patterns with anyone else.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • Uncle Leo
    Uncle Leo Posts: 1,059
    surferdude wrote:
    As someone mentioned the poor are getting richer as well, just at a slower rate.

    If they are getting "richer" at a slower rate, the are most likely getting poorer. Yes their nominal earnings are going up, but if they are going up slower than all other classes, they are losing money relatively.

    Is their Standare of living going up?

    While I am not an economist, I would guess that their "slower speed of getting richer" indicates that they are going up slower than inflation. If so, then they are really getting poorer.
    I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    surferdude wrote:
    Who cares if it favors the rich. As someone mentioned the poor are getting richer as well, just at a slower rate. Happiness is not found in wealth so by comparing their financials gains to a rich person's financial gains is just playing a version of keeping up with the Joneses. Which is really all about trying to find happiness and esteem through consumption. Talk about a dead end.

    I seriously couldn't come within $10K of guessing how much I make. Not that I make a lot but that I don't care. I make enought for the lifestyle I want, which is far from extravagant. I don't have cable, I drive a very basic car that friends tell me is beneath me, I try to stay in hostels or camp while travelling. I know I could make a lot more than I do but am not willing to make the sacrifice to my life outside of work to do so. I make enough to be happy. I live within my means. I save for retirement. I laugh lots. At that point I don't care what the CEO makes. My esteem is not found in comparing income or consumption patterns with anyone else.

    i really like your posts dude. you've got a grip about what is really going on.

    i'd like to ask the others something.
    who do you think would be happier:
    bill gates in the final stages of cancer; or someone making enough to enjoy their life and in perfect health?
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    Uncle Leo wrote:
    Is their Standard of living going up?
    Of course it is. Things that were extravavgances 20 years ago are now standard. Things like microwaves, tv's, cable, cell phones. I know more middle class people going without some of these things as sacrifices made to financially get ahead than I know "poor" people going them without period.

    I taught my son at age 5 about spending decisions. He wanted cable at about $50/month. I showed him how much that equaled a year. I then showed him how little a week in Disneyland goes for. Even at age 5 he choose a life changing travel experience once a year over sitting on his ass watching tv.

    All this said I think all governments should do more to help those unable to help themselves and possibly a little less for those who can help themselves. Open ended help for those able to help themselves is crazy. For the able bodied help should be time limited.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    onelongsong wrote:
    i really like your posts dude. you've got a grip about what is really going on.
    Thanks. Happiness comes from within. A lot of social activists seem to have completely forotten this. They know their jobs depend on the consumption cycle and this is the song and dance they sell.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    onelongsong wrote:
    i really like your posts dude. you've got a grip about what is really going on.

    i'd like to ask the others something.
    who do you think would be happier:
    bill gates in the final stages of cancer; or someone making enough to enjoy their life and in perfect health?

    that question isn't rigged at all ... :rolleyes:

    sure ... life isn't about material things ... but opportunity is subjective ... what people need to realize is opportunity and privilege is not an all available thing ... having choice is not necessarily always available ...

    there is a fine line between just reward and exploitation ...

    ps. edit - social activists believe in a "better world" for all ... everyone has contradictions in their lives ... it takes true compassion to fight for others and not just yourself ...
  • CaterinaA
    CaterinaA Posts: 572
    Uncle Leo wrote:
    If they are getting "richer" at a slower rate, the are most likely getting poorer. Yes their nominal earnings are going up, but if they are going up slower than all other classes, they are losing money relatively.

    Is their Standare of living going up?

    While I am not an economist, I would guess that their "slower speed of getting richer" indicates that they are going up slower than inflation. If so, then they are really getting poorer.

    I think what surferdude meant with his statement is that the poor are getting richer at a slower pace than the rich. So, if this is the case, in relative terms (comparing poor vs. rich) the richer are richer, while the poor are poorer. Anyway if the poorer's income is also increasing (but a slower rate), you could have less people below poverty line and yet more income inequality. This is happening in Chile: between 1990 and 2006 poverty has decreased from 38% to 13.6%, nevertheless income inequality has remained practically unaltered.

    Anyway, this statement is correct: "slower speed of getting richer" indicates that they are going up slower than inflation. If so, then they are really getting poorer. If their income is growing slower than the inflation rate, their income would decrease in real terms, 'cause your spending power would diminish

    I'm an economist but I could be mistaken (I graduated a long time ago :D)
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    polaris wrote:
    that question isn't rigged at all ... :rolleyes:

    sure ... life isn't about material things ... but opportunity is subjective ... what people need to realize is opportunity and privilege is not an all available thing ... having choice is not necessarily always available ...

    there is a fine line between just reward and exploitation ...

    being born dirt poor; i feel i have an opinion that goes both ways. my happiest times were when we were lower and lower middle class. when one has money they worry about how to hang on to it. how to keep the government from getting it. how to put it to work. where to invest. when to invest and when to pull out.
    i like a simple normal life. i have 1 tele; my neighbour gave me a dvd player because i didn't have one but i haven't used it yet. i got dvds for christmas i haven't broken the seal on yet. i enjoy being outside. i'll talk to the buffalo like someone else will talk to their dog.
    a simple life and working hard is the way to get ahead. when you spend your money on teles and things not necessary; you can't really complain about not having money.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    onelongsong wrote:
    being born dirt poor; i feel i have an opinion that goes both ways. my happiest times were when we were lower and lower middle class. when one has money they worry about how to hang on to it. how to keep the government from getting it. how to put it to work. where to invest. when to invest and when to pull out.
    i like a simple normal life. i have 1 tele; my neighbour gave me a dvd player because i didn't have one but i haven't used it yet. i got dvds for christmas i haven't broken the seal on yet. i enjoy being outside. i'll talk to the buffalo like someone else will talk to their dog.
    a simple life and working hard is the way to get ahead. when you spend your money on teles and things not necessary; you can't really complain about not having money.

    i hear what you are saying ... but everyone has different realities - we can't judge all the people that have not with one stroke ... if everyone truly had the opportunities that you and i have had - then they only have themselves and such to blame ... but that simply isn't the case in this world ...

    what do you say to the guy who has to work in poor factory conditions making a buck a day so we can enjoy cheap cups? ... life isn't fair - no need to whine about it but at the same time - there is no need to say otherwise ...
  • dmitry
    dmitry Posts: 136
    Workers in this country are generally more productive because they work with more capital. This doesn't mean the workers are performing at a higher level than before, just that they have more tools at their disposal.

    In that respect just about anybody that gets a job now will be more productive than they would have been in the past.

    The reason that low-skilled workers don't get higher wages, even though they are more productive than before, is because there are lots of other unskilled workers that can replace them. Their wages will only increase when the demand for unskilled labor increases.

    If you want more pie (the pie is basically unlimited), you need to get some skill.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    polaris wrote:
    i hear what you are saying ... but everyone has different realities - we can't judge all the people that have not with one stroke ... if everyone truly had the opportunities that you and i have had - then they only have themselves and such to blame ... but that simply isn't the case in this world ...

    what do you say to the guy who has to work in poor factory conditions making a buck a day so we can enjoy cheap cups? ... life isn't fair - no need to whine about it but at the same time - there is no need to say otherwise ...

    i agree. when i was 10 my dad was that factory worker making $2.50/hour. at that time it was well above minimum wage. i got a job there sweeping floors on saturdays for 50 cents/hour cash. i also cut lawns.
    there's a line from the song "lovers in a dangerous time" that i keep repeating to myself whenever i'm trying to do something and it's going bad or slow:
    GOTTA KICK AT THE DARKNESS TILL IT BLEEDS DAYLIGHT.
    i wanted to buy my daughter and son in law a small ranch in indiana. for some reason that's where they want to live and they've done good there for several years. she said "daddy; you've done so much; we want to do this on our own." i cried because that's what i told my dad when i was 16. they have 2 small babies and they're struggling but doing it themselves makes it mean so much more than being handed something. i guess that's what i was trying to say.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    dmitry wrote:
    Workers in this country are generally more productive because they work with more capital. This doesn't mean the workers are performing at a higher level than before, just that they have more tools at their disposal.

    In that respect just about anybody that gets a job now will be more productive than they would have been in the past.

    The reason that low-skilled workers don't get higher wages, even though they are more productive than before, is because there are lots of other unskilled workers that can replace them. Their wages will only increase when the demand for unskilled labor increases.

    If you want more pie (the pie is basically unlimited), you need to get some skill.

    i understand what you're saying and i agree; but technology replaces workers too. for example; my dad and i bought a small machine shop. it had 3 employees but each one was a skilled machinist and we paid good wages. then we bought a cnc lathe and realized i could program it and a monkey could open the collet; put a piece of metal in it; and hit the start button. we noticed our production went up and so did profits. 6 months later we bought another. when the recession of the 70's hit; we saw that the employee was sitting idle while the machine did the work. so we turned the machines face to face and 1 employee ran both machines. we kept the skilled machinists for prototype work and because they were loyal to us; but they're dead now and the entire workforce is kids out of high school. a couple run 3 machines. i retired from that but my dad has 1 person who programs but the rest of the employees don't know a monkey wrench from a monkey's arse.
  • Eliot Rosewater
    Eliot Rosewater Posts: 2,659
    Everyone is off topic here anyway. The story is about how the media tells of a booming economy yet politicians claim at the same time that we can't afford many of the social programs that already exist. It's not about fucking socialism here. It's about the rich and powerful cutting social security and medicare. Why? Because they obviously don't need it, that's why.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    don't gimme no wrote:
    Everyone is off topic here anyway. The story is about how the media tells of a booming economy yet politicians claim at the same time that we can't afford many of the social programs that already exist.
    and let me tell you where you are confused.

    our nations booming economy has nothing to do with our governments ability or inability to pay for social programs.

    our economy IS booming. unemployment is low, capital spending is rising, the stock market is at record highs, our economy is strong enough to shake off a slump in home prices and record high gas prices.

    but since you arent getting free handouts such as "free" health care, you conclude our economy is NOT booming?

    there is no correlation.
  • Eliot Rosewater
    Eliot Rosewater Posts: 2,659
    jlew24asu wrote:
    and let me tell you where you are confused.

    our nations booming economy has nothing to do with our governments ability or inability to pay for social programs.

    our economy IS booming. unemployment is low, capital spending is rising, the stock market is at record highs, our economy is strong enough to shake off a slump in home prices and record high gas prices.

    but since you arent getting free handouts such as "free" health care, you conclude our economy is NOT booming?

    there is no correlation.
    A moral society would create a correlation if none exists. But I disagree with you that there is no correlation. When they use the words "can't afford" for social programs then it's 100% bullshit. 100% bullshit. The answer is obviously to NOT cut back spending on social programs. Jesus. It's not fucking rocket science.

Categories