$3.7 Trillion

[Pinky]

Not trying to snipe at you, but:

Get rid of most tax deferments created in the last 30 years. As Donk alluded to, there are a lot of these.

Once you factor out the very wealthy, retirement plans and homes are probably the biggest deferments out there. Both are sacred cows.

Some sacred cows need to be sacrificed. The home mortgage deduction, employer tax credits for health insurance, all farm support, Medicare, the defense budget,....There's a lot of blood that fiscal conservatives should be willing to shed, even though most are not.

That's because they have to run for reelection. No economist has ever made a compelling enough case, either to politicians or the public, to get these ideas any traction.

No economist has ever been listened to for long enough have a chance. On the other hand, very few economists have really tried to reach the public. (More have tried to reach to reach politicians, but they quickly find no one listening. )

[Grandpa's Spells]

The only problems I see are run away envy and ignorance. This inequality crap is nothing more than socialist drivel. The only people getting rich at anyone's expense is politicians and their cronies.

So growing economic inequality is not a problem to you, or doesn't exist at all. Got it.

Also, if you are poor in the USA it's because you are (1) stupid and or (2) lazy.

It's helpful to believe this, since it might encourage you to work hard, but it's a false belief. Nobody is talking about the poor, because economic inequality is not about the poor. It's about everybody who's not super-wealthy. The middle class is flattening and shrinking as well.

There's two categories of people who are sucking up increasing percentage of wealth in this country, people who were born rich, and people who are accumulating it rapidly in their lifetimes.

The born rich people are not staying rich because they are hard working. Here's an easy example of some people I know:

A son took over his father's large company when the father passed away. His siblings each had something on the order of $100M in inheritance, his compensation skyrockets and he ends up with multiple billions. Families with net worths of this size will own a law firm who's primary function is to keep their fortune growing in perpetuity. These guys are not in the Forbes US top 500.

The adult grand-children of the long-dead guy who started the company don't have to work (not just the CEO's kids, none of his nephews and nieces). Some work hard, some don't work at all, but their permanent wealth has nothing meaningful to do with work. They all are paid out of their trust on a periodic basis, so they can't squander it, and the is trust structured to exist and grow forever.

"Yeah, but the guy who runs a company deserves his pay." For the guy who's out there as a CEO and making the money himself, since 1978 his adjusted compensation has gone from 18x the typical company employee to 200x. There isn't any evidence of this being based on massively improved CEOs.

This isn't even including the Wall Street guys, who as a group are huge assholes.

There's really nothing to do with envy. Having the wealth of the nation horded by a tiny minority in a system not based on merit is un-American.

[Kazuya Mishima]

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence ... umber-full

[Turdacious]

If you wanted to actually help poorer people Spells, you should really be more interested in lowering the floor (cost of living) than raising the ceiling (amount of benefits). Doing things that lower the cost of living is far preferable for the poor than doing things that effectively reduce their incentives to work, or reduce jobs.

Things like:
Returning mortgage deductibility policies to pre-Clinton levels
Capping mortgage deductions above a certain amount (say 150% of the national housing average)
Getting rid of crop and dairy subsidies that raise the cost of food

[DrDonkeyLove]

If you wanted to actually help poorer people Spells, you should really be more interested in lowering the floor (cost of living) than raising the ceiling (amount of benefits). Doing things that lower the cost of living is far preferable for the poor than doing things that effectively reduce their incentives to work, or reduce jobs.

Things like:
Returning mortgage deductibility policies to pre-Clinton levels
Capping mortgage deductions above a certain amount (say 150% of the national housing average)
Getting rid of crop and dairy subsidies that raise the cost of food

I personally don't care about the 0.1% as long as I have the ability to try to get my own piece of the pie. I'm not an economist but if the Obamacrats would just stop supporting things that make small business nervous, I'm certain that it would help a lot. Obama's part-time worker economy is doing nothing to elevate the 99%.

If we took every penny that the 1%ers have, how much would it really help?

[Pinky]

If your concerns about inequality are related to possible effects on intergenerational mobility, early education and healthcare are where you should focus attention.

[Turdacious]

If you wanted to actually help poorer people Spells, you should really be more interested in lowering the floor (cost of living) than raising the ceiling (amount of benefits). Doing things that lower the cost of living is far preferable for the poor than doing things that effectively reduce their incentives to work, or reduce jobs.

Things like:
Returning mortgage deductibility policies to pre-Clinton levels
Capping mortgage deductions above a certain amount (say 150% of the national housing average)
Getting rid of crop and dairy subsidies that raise the cost of food

I personally don't care about the 0.1% as long as I have the ability to try to get my own piece of the pie. I'm not an economist but if the Obamacrats would just stop supporting things that make small business nervous, I'm certain that it would help a lot. Obama's part-time worker economy is doing nothing to elevate the 99%.

If we took every penny that the 1%ers have, how much would it really help?

Businesses tend to make decisions based on longer term projections (3-5 years), but the administration tends to handle things on a year to year basis. That would seem to create a lot of uncertainty. It's got to be hurting economic growth.

I tend to think that the Obamacare business mandate could have been repealed as part of the last continuing resolution negotation in exchange for more Medicare fraud control funds-- that would have done a lot to boost business confidence and likely boosted Medicare's longer term viability.

[Batboy2/75]

The only problems I see are run away envy and ignorance. This inequality crap is nothing more than socialist drivel. The only people getting rich at anyone's expense is politicians and their cronies.

So growing economic inequality is not a problem to you, or doesn't exist at all. Got it.

Also, if you are poor in the USA it's because you are (1) stupid and or (2) lazy.

It's helpful to believe this, since it might encourage you to work hard, but it's a false belief. Nobody is talking about the poor, because economic inequality is not about the poor. It's about everybody who's not super-wealthy. The middle class is flattening and shrinking as well.

There's two categories of people who are sucking up increasing percentage of wealth in this country, people who were born rich, and people who are accumulating it rapidly in their lifetimes.

The born rich people are not staying rich because they are hard working. Here's an easy example of some people I know:

A son took over his father's large company when the father passed away. His siblings each had something on the order of $100M in inheritance, his compensation skyrockets and he ends up with multiple billions. Families with net worths of this size will own a law firm who's primary function is to keep their fortune growing in perpetuity. These guys are not in the Forbes US top 500.

The adult grand-children of the long-dead guy who started the company don't have to work (not just the CEO's kids, none of his nephews and nieces). Some work hard, some don't work at all, but their permanent wealth has nothing meaningful to do with work. They all are paid out of their trust on a periodic basis, so they can't squander it, and the is trust structured to exist and grow forever.

"Yeah, but the guy who runs a company deserves his pay." For the guy who's out there as a CEO and making the money himself, since 1978 his adjusted compensation has gone from 18x the typical company employee to 200x. There isn't any evidence of this being based on massively improved CEOs.

This isn't even including the Wall Street guys, who as a group are huge assholes.

There's really nothing to do with envy. Having the wealth of the nation horded by a tiny minority in a system not based on merit is un-American.

You labor under this false assumption that wealth is a fixed set of marbles, that wealth is finite. In your world; If A has more, B must have less. This flies in the face of all main stream economic thought. Only loons believe otherwise.

[nafod]

The only problems I see are run away envy and ignorance. This inequality crap is nothing more than socialist drivel. The only people getting rich at anyone's expense is politicians and their cronies.

So growing economic inequality is not a problem to you, or doesn't exist at all. Got it.

Also, if you are poor in the USA it's because you are (1) stupid and or (2) lazy.

It's helpful to believe this, since it might encourage you to work hard, but it's a false belief. Nobody is talking about the poor, because economic inequality is not about the poor. It's about everybody who's not super-wealthy. The middle class is flattening and shrinking as well.

There's two categories of people who are sucking up increasing percentage of wealth in this country, people who were born rich, and people who are accumulating it rapidly in their lifetimes.

The born rich people are not staying rich because they are hard working. Here's an easy example of some people I know:

A son took over his father's large company when the father passed away. His siblings each had something on the order of $100M in inheritance, his compensation skyrockets and he ends up with multiple billions. Families with net worths of this size will own a law firm who's primary function is to keep their fortune growing in perpetuity. These guys are not in the Forbes US top 500.

The adult grand-children of the long-dead guy who started the company don't have to work (not just the CEO's kids, none of his nephews and nieces). Some work hard, some don't work at all, but their permanent wealth has nothing meaningful to do with work. They all are paid out of their trust on a periodic basis, so they can't squander it, and the is trust structured to exist and grow forever.

"Yeah, but the guy who runs a company deserves his pay." For the guy who's out there as a CEO and making the money himself, since 1978 his adjusted compensation has gone from 18x the typical company employee to 200x. There isn't any evidence of this being based on massively improved CEOs.

This isn't even including the Wall Street guys, who as a group are huge assholes.

There's really nothing to do with envy. Having the wealth of the nation horded by a tiny minority in a system not based on merit is un-American.

You labor under this false assumption that wealth is a fixed set of marbles, that wealth is finite. In your world; If A has more, B must have less. This flies in the face of all main stream economic thought. Only loons believe otherwise.

If you have a fixed amount of money coming into the company, then if the CEO gets 200 times more than the average employee, that by definition means the average employee is getting less. Spells is arguing that the CEOs haven't gotten better, but their pay has. I'm not seeing much out there to make me disagree. I'm not seeing the collective group of CEOs creating more wealth faster than the ones who only made 18 times what their average employee did.

From an economy standpoint a CEO who makes 200 times the wages of the average employee doesn't buy 200 times the appliances, TVs, and all that stuff that drives our economy and makes it go around in a circle. Concentrating wealth means less consumer goods purchasing, and since consumer goods purchasing is a central engine of the economy...an ebbing tide lowers all boats.

[Batboy2/75]

The only problems I see are run away envy and ignorance. This inequality crap is nothing more than socialist drivel. The only people getting rich at anyone's expense is politicians and their cronies.

So growing economic inequality is not a problem to you, or doesn't exist at all. Got it.

Also, if you are poor in the USA it's because you are (1) stupid and or (2) lazy.

It's helpful to believe this, since it might encourage you to work hard, but it's a false belief. Nobody is talking about the poor, because economic inequality is not about the poor. It's about everybody who's not super-wealthy. The middle class is flattening and shrinking as well.

There's two categories of people who are sucking up increasing percentage of wealth in this country, people who were born rich, and people who are accumulating it rapidly in their lifetimes.

The born rich people are not staying rich because they are hard working. Here's an easy example of some people I know:

A son took over his father's large company when the father passed away. His siblings each had something on the order of $100M in inheritance, his compensation skyrockets and he ends up with multiple billions. Families with net worths of this size will own a law firm who's primary function is to keep their fortune growing in perpetuity. These guys are not in the Forbes US top 500.

The adult grand-children of the long-dead guy who started the company don't have to work (not just the CEO's kids, none of his nephews and nieces). Some work hard, some don't work at all, but their permanent wealth has nothing meaningful to do with work. They all are paid out of their trust on a periodic basis, so they can't squander it, and the is trust structured to exist and grow forever.

"Yeah, but the guy who runs a company deserves his pay." For the guy who's out there as a CEO and making the money himself, since 1978 his adjusted compensation has gone from 18x the typical company employee to 200x. There isn't any evidence of this being based on massively improved CEOs.

This isn't even including the Wall Street guys, who as a group are huge assholes.

There's really nothing to do with envy. Having the wealth of the nation horded by a tiny minority in a system not based on merit is un-American.

You labor under this false assumption that wealth is a fixed set of marbles, that wealth is finite. In your world; If A has more, B must have less. This flies in the face of all main stream economic thought. Only loons believe otherwise.

If you have a fixed amount of money coming into the company, then if the CEO gets 200 times more than the average employee, that by definition means the average employee is getting less. Spells is arguing that the CEOs haven't gotten better, but their pay has. I'm not seeing much out there to make me disagree. I'm not seeing the collective group of CEOs creating more wealth faster than the ones who only made 18 times what their average employee did.

From an economy standpoint a CEO who makes 200 times the wages of the average employee doesn't buy 200 times the appliances, TVs, and all that stuff that drives our economy and makes it go around in a circle. Concentrating wealth means less consumer goods purchasing, and since consumer goods purchasing is a central engine of the economy...an ebbing tide lowers all boats.

You have this false assumption that CEOs are like Scrooge McDuck. As if all their wealth is locked in vaults where the swim and play with their money. The moment their money is deposited in a bank account it is gone. It is invested in something.

Money does not care if 10 really rich people hold it or 1 million people hold it. It all gets spent or invested in some way.

[Turdacious]

If you have a fixed amount of money coming into the company, then if the CEO gets 200 times more than the average employee, that by definition means the average employee is getting less. Spells is arguing that the CEOs haven't gotten better, but their pay has. I'm not seeing much out there to make me disagree. I'm not seeing the collective group of CEOs creating more wealth faster than the ones who only made 18 times what their average employee did.

A CEO who makes bad decisions can fuck up a company 200x worse than a single employee. The CEO is also responsible for the company's performance; employees (individually or collectively) are not. Also, more importantly, CEOs have much more ability to demand higher pay than the average employee. Employees can be outsourced and/or replaced with machines far easier than CEOs can.

From an economy standpoint a CEO who makes 200 times the wages of the average employee doesn't buy 200 times the appliances, TVs, and all that stuff that drives our economy and makes it go around in a circle. Concentrating wealth means less consumer goods purchasing, and since consumer goods purchasing is a central engine of the economy...an ebbing tide lowers all boats.

Just looking at wages is a mistake. Labor costs are far higher than wages when you consider all the extras that businesses pay for-- social security taxes, medicare taxes, health insurance premiums, pensions/retirement, etc...

[nafod]

The only problems I see are run away envy and ignorance. This inequality crap is nothing more than socialist drivel. The only people getting rich at anyone's expense is politicians and their cronies.

So growing economic inequality is not a problem to you, or doesn't exist at all. Got it.

Also, if you are poor in the USA it's because you are (1) stupid and or (2) lazy.

It's helpful to believe this, since it might encourage you to work hard, but it's a false belief. Nobody is talking about the poor, because economic inequality is not about the poor. It's about everybody who's not super-wealthy. The middle class is flattening and shrinking as well.

There's two categories of people who are sucking up increasing percentage of wealth in this country, people who were born rich, and people who are accumulating it rapidly in their lifetimes.

The born rich people are not staying rich because they are hard working. Here's an easy example of some people I know:

A son took over his father's large company when the father passed away. His siblings each had something on the order of $100M in inheritance, his compensation skyrockets and he ends up with multiple billions. Families with net worths of this size will own a law firm who's primary function is to keep their fortune growing in perpetuity. These guys are not in the Forbes US top 500.

The adult grand-children of the long-dead guy who started the company don't have to work (not just the CEO's kids, none of his nephews and nieces). Some work hard, some don't work at all, but their permanent wealth has nothing meaningful to do with work. They all are paid out of their trust on a periodic basis, so they can't squander it, and the is trust structured to exist and grow forever.

"Yeah, but the guy who runs a company deserves his pay." For the guy who's out there as a CEO and making the money himself, since 1978 his adjusted compensation has gone from 18x the typical company employee to 200x. There isn't any evidence of this being based on massively improved CEOs.

This isn't even including the Wall Street guys, who as a group are huge assholes.

There's really nothing to do with envy. Having the wealth of the nation horded by a tiny minority in a system not based on merit is un-American.

You labor under this false assumption that wealth is a fixed set of marbles, that wealth is finite. In your world; If A has more, B must have less. This flies in the face of all main stream economic thought. Only loons believe otherwise.

If you have a fixed amount of money coming into the company, then if the CEO gets 200 times more than the average employee, that by definition means the average employee is getting less. Spells is arguing that the CEOs haven't gotten better, but their pay has. I'm not seeing much out there to make me disagree. I'm not seeing the collective group of CEOs creating more wealth faster than the ones who only made 18 times what their average employee did.

From an economy standpoint a CEO who makes 200 times the wages of the average employee doesn't buy 200 times the appliances, TVs, and all that stuff that drives our economy and makes it go around in a circle. Concentrating wealth means less consumer goods purchasing, and since consumer goods purchasing is a central engine of the economy...an ebbing tide lowers all boats.

You have this false assumption that CEOs are like Scrooge McDuck. As if all their wealth is locked in vaults where the swim and play with their money. The moment their money is deposited in a bank account it is gone. It is invested in something.

Money does not care if 10 really rich people hold it or 1 million people hold it. It all gets spent or invested in some way.

No, I don't have that false assumption. But again, he can only buy so many cars, etc. That money that gets invested...what does it get invested in? Who is going to buy the product that results from that investment?

To take it to extremes, the idea that the money from a single rich landowner with 100 slaves will orbit in the economy the same as if that money was being earned and spent relatively equally by 101 worker/consumers, is ludicrous.

[Batboy2/75]

The only problems I see are run away envy and ignorance. This inequality crap is nothing more than socialist drivel. The only people getting rich at anyone's expense is politicians and their cronies.

So growing economic inequality is not a problem to you, or doesn't exist at all. Got it.

Also, if you are poor in the USA it's because you are (1) stupid and or (2) lazy.

It's helpful to believe this, since it might encourage you to work hard, but it's a false belief. Nobody is talking about the poor, because economic inequality is not about the poor. It's about everybody who's not super-wealthy. The middle class is flattening and shrinking as well.

There's two categories of people who are sucking up increasing percentage of wealth in this country, people who were born rich, and people who are accumulating it rapidly in their lifetimes.

The born rich people are not staying rich because they are hard working. Here's an easy example of some people I know:

A son took over his father's large company when the father passed away. His siblings each had something on the order of $100M in inheritance, his compensation skyrockets and he ends up with multiple billions. Families with net worths of this size will own a law firm who's primary function is to keep their fortune growing in perpetuity. These guys are not in the Forbes US top 500.

The adult grand-children of the long-dead guy who started the company don't have to work (not just the CEO's kids, none of his nephews and nieces). Some work hard, some don't work at all, but their permanent wealth has nothing meaningful to do with work. They all are paid out of their trust on a periodic basis, so they can't squander it, and the is trust structured to exist and grow forever.

"Yeah, but the guy who runs a company deserves his pay." For the guy who's out there as a CEO and making the money himself, since 1978 his adjusted compensation has gone from 18x the typical company employee to 200x. There isn't any evidence of this being based on massively improved CEOs.

This isn't even including the Wall Street guys, who as a group are huge assholes.

There's really nothing to do with envy. Having the wealth of the nation horded by a tiny minority in a system not based on merit is un-American.

You labor under this false assumption that wealth is a fixed set of marbles, that wealth is finite. In your world; If A has more, B must have less. This flies in the face of all main stream economic thought. Only loons believe otherwise.

If you have a fixed amount of money coming into the company, then if the CEO gets 200 times more than the average employee, that by definition means the average employee is getting less. Spells is arguing that the CEOs haven't gotten better, but their pay has. I'm not seeing much out there to make me disagree. I'm not seeing the collective group of CEOs creating more wealth faster than the ones who only made 18 times what their average employee did.

From an economy standpoint a CEO who makes 200 times the wages of the average employee doesn't buy 200 times the appliances, TVs, and all that stuff that drives our economy and makes it go around in a circle. Concentrating wealth means less consumer goods purchasing, and since consumer goods purchasing is a central engine of the economy...an ebbing tide lowers all boats.

You have this false assumption that CEOs are like Scrooge McDuck. As if all their wealth is locked in vaults where the swim and play with their money. The moment their money is deposited in a bank account it is gone. It is invested in something.

Money does not care if 10 really rich people hold it or 1 million people hold it. It all gets spent or invested in some way.

No, I don't have that false assumption. But again, he can only buy so many cars, etc. That money that gets invested...what does it get invested in? Who is going to buy the product that results from that investment?

To take it to extremes, the idea that the money from a single rich landowner with 100 slaves will orbit in the economy the same as if that money was being earned and spent relatively equally by 101 worker/consumers, is ludicrous.

Who buys a product from an investment? Everyone single person in the world, that's who.

What do You think happens to cold hard cash that's deposited in a bank or any investment vehicle? It doesn't just sit there gathering dust. It get's invested throughout the economy and has just as positive effect as someone buying a TV or a CAR. It all gets spent on goods and services.

At this point you should stop and breakout an economics book.

[nafod]

A CEO who makes bad decisions can fuck up a company 200x worse than a single employee.

So can an Admiral, but he doesn't make 200x what a junior enlisted makes.

I'm not socialist income redistribution advocate, but I do see a problem tied to the income imbalance. It is likely a symptom of bigger issues, the loss of high paying jobs being the obvious thing. It will be hard to run a stable democracy with the majority of voters being have-nots.

Everything old is new, and this all is a hot topic in teddy Roosevelt's biography that I am reading.

[Turdacious]

A CEO who makes bad decisions can fuck up a company 200x worse than a single employee.

So can an Admiral, but he doesn't make 200x what a junior enlisted makes.

I'm not socialist income redistribution advocate, but I do see a problem tied to the income imbalance. It is likely a symptom of bigger issues, the loss of high paying jobs being the obvious thing. It will be hard to run a stable democracy with the majority of voters being have-nots.

Everything old is new, and this all is a hot topic in teddy Roosevelt's biography that I am reading.

TR went after fat cats for political advantage, nothing more. Previous presidents did the important heavy lifting on trust-busting. And the responsibilities of an Admiral are very different than those of a CEO. Admirals are not judged on their ability to turn a profit.

The reason that more voters are becoming have-nots has very little to do with CEO compensation. Global competition and government policies that effectively hurt labor are far bigger issues.

[Protobuilder]

Aiming to be like South Africa, where rich and poor are not only ideologically but physically separated is indeed a noble goal though they don't have the 99%/1% separation of wealth the US does.

A better idea may to try to be like certain Caribbean countries where mega yachts (with multiple TVs to keep the economy ROLLING) are backdrop for people working with their backs and hands and trying to get by. Of course, they have better alcohol than the US so that's not realistic either.

I'm not socialist income redistribution advocate, but I do see a problem tied to the income imbalance. It is likely a symptom of bigger issues, the loss of high paying jobs being the obvious thing. It will be hard to run a stable democracy with the majority of voters being have-nots.

A functioning democracy depends on citizens having enough in common to actually encounter each other over the course of a normal day. Nowadays, the current form of US gov't can continue only if a good segment of the population is functionally excluded from the political process. Citizens United essentially laughed at such a quaint ideal as "of the people, by the people".

[nafod]

A CEO who makes bad decisions can fuck up a company 200x worse than a single employee.

So can an Admiral, but he doesn't make 200x what a junior enlisted makes.

I'm not socialist income redistribution advocate, but I do see a problem tied to the income imbalance. It is likely a symptom of bigger issues, the loss of high paying jobs being the obvious thing. It will be hard to run a stable democracy with the majority of voters being have-nots.

Everything old is new, and this all is a hot topic in teddy Roosevelt's biography that I am reading.

TR went after fat cats for political advantage, nothing more.

Well, it ultimately doesn't matter what was in his heart, empathy or cold-hearted political calculus. His approach resonated, and it will again if we return to those sorts of times. Especially since it would be a regressing. People are much more tolerant of tough times when we're all in it together. "Let them eat cake" is still a loser message.

[Grandpa's Spells]

Just looking at wages is a mistake. Labor costs are far higher than wages when you consider all the extras that businesses pay for-- social security taxes, medicare taxes, health insurance premiums, pensions/retirement, etc...

You don't have to just look at wages. You can look at where all the dollars are ending up. It isn't in the pockets of people making $15k - 200k per year.

"You can't trust the numbers" is also kind of bullshit, generally. If compensation numbers were actually wrong, there would be easy explanations why. If anybody has been benefiting from new ways to make/keep money the last 30 years, it's not your standard blue and white collar workers.

You labor under this false assumption that wealth is a fixed set of marbles, that wealth is finite. In your world; If A has more, B must have less. This flies in the face of all main stream economic thought. Only loons believe otherwise.

Sorry, no, that's not how it works at all. If the pie is growing at 3% a year, but the .1%'s wealth is growing at 25% a year (it's not, but extremes help illustrate examples), the 99.9% have to have less, and eventually zero or negative amounts. That model is absolutely unsustainable, despite the fact that money doesn't care where it is invested. The people without any care a lot.

People in countries that adopted socialism, even though it was a terrible idea, didn't do it for no reason. They did it because it looked like a better deal than the one they were getting, where one set of rules applied to a very rich and powerful minority, and another to them.

And when you have poor economic mobility, there's something wrong with the rules. It is getting harder for rich people to go broke, and for middle class ones to get rich. You may believe that the children of poor people happen to all be lazy (and getting lazier), the middle class ones happen to be medium workers (and getting worse), and the children of the richest work 200x harder/smarter than the average worker, and 10x better than they did 30 years ago. But it's not true, despite that being exactly how the money ultimately gets allocated.

That's very bad shit. See: A lot of people worshiping Russel Brand's comments recently, and the stuff he was spouting was legit will-not-work socialism. Unfortunately, he's making a more compelling argument than John Boehner.

[Pinky]

A CEO who makes bad decisions can fuck up a company 200x worse than a single employee.

So can an Admiral, but he doesn't make 200x what a junior enlisted makes.

I'm not socialist income redistribution advocate, but I do see a problem tied to the income imbalance. It is likely a symptom of bigger issues, the loss of high paying jobs being the obvious thing. It will be hard to run a stable democracy with the majority of voters being have-nots.

Everything old is new, and this all is a hot topic in teddy Roosevelt's biography that I am reading.

TR went after fat cats for political advantage, nothing more.

Well, it ultimately doesn't matter what was in his heart, empathy or cold-hearted political calculus. His approach resonated, and it will again if we return to those sorts of times. Especially since it would be a regressing. People are much more tolerant of tough times when we're all in it together. "Let them eat cake" is still a loser message.

Comparing CEO pay to the pay of less skilled workers is not helpful. It's related to overall inequality only because the pay of all highly-skilled workers, including CEOs, has risen relative to less-skilled workers.

Although there are exceptional cases, there is no evidence of CEO pay today being the systematic problem that people think it is. Relative to the value of the companies they manage CEO pay is about where it was in the late 1970s and lower than it was in the '50s. Furthermore, the evidence points to CEO pay and turnover being strongly related to performance. CEO are paid more now than they were in (insert golden age of choice) because they are responsible for much more valuable companies.

Inequality rose dramatically in the 1980s, and the income distribution has "hollowed out" since. But executive compensation doesn't explain either.

[Pinky]

And when you have poor economic mobility, there's something wrong with the rules. It is getting harder for rich people to go broke, and for middle class ones to get rich.

I've seen no evidence of worsening economic mobility, but it's still bad. There is reason to worry that kids born to poor parents won't have the same opportunities as kids born to the wealthy or middle class.

But it's not clear that attacking inequality directly would increase economic mobility. Redirecting resources to the health and education of poor children would do more to improve intergenerational mobility than flogging fat cats would.

[Kazuya Mishima]

http://www.breitbart.com/system/wire/up ... 90047-8708

[buckethead]

Redirecting resources to the health and education of poor children .

Heresy!

[Turdacious]

Redirecting the way resources are directed to the health and education of poor children would do more to improve intergenerational mobility than flogging fat cats would.

Fixed. The resources are directed, just horribly misallocated to please entrenched special interested.

[Pinky]

Redirecting the way resources are directed to the health and education of poor children would do more to improve intergenerational mobility than flogging fat cats would.

Fixed. The resources are directed, just horribly misallocated to please entrenched special interested.

Maybe. I agree that the resources are horribly misallocated, but I don't know that we could effectively help very young children without spending a little more on their health and education.

Of course, if the misallocation you're referring to includes things like Medicare, then we agree. Spending as much as we do on medical care for people at the end of their lives is ludicrous. Even very intensive interventions for young children, like sending nurses into the homes of poor mothers, would have higher returns. We could cut Medicare spending in half, redirect part of the savings to poor kids, and still give the average Medicare recipient more than they paid in.

But nothing like that would ever happen.

[Turdacious]

Redirecting the way resources are directed to the health and education of poor children would do more to improve intergenerational mobility than flogging fat cats would.

Fixed. The resources are directed, just horribly misallocated to please entrenched special interested.

Maybe. I agree that the resources are horribly misallocated, but I don't know that we could effectively help very young children without spending a little more on their health and education.

Of course, if the misallocation you're referring to includes things like Medicare, then we agree. Spending as much as we do on medical care for people at the end of their lives is ludicrous. Even very intensive interventions for young children, like sending nurses into the homes of poor mothers, would have higher returns. We could cut Medicare spending in half, redirect part of the savings to poor kids, and still give the average Medicare recipient more than they paid in.

But nothing like that would ever happen.

I'm referring to Medicaid-- although Medicare could use reference pricing far more effectively to save money..
Not that the administration is committed to it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independen ... #Reception

Better education for poor kids would include getting rid of perverse incentives to classify kids as disabled, breaking teacher unions, more focus on voc-ed, better NCLB standards, and clearer differentiation between needs of poor kids in urban and more rural communities.