Economy Study: Middle Class Is Over

[Ripskater]

Your while Schick Rip-- its a troll account for a mod. The ingenuousness does come through but it sometimes can be confused for you being stupid. You are not though-- just faking.

It comes through way more now though than it used to after you self quit and then came back after trying on a couple different shticks. I think the original impulse to cease was accurate.

I took this post to the lounge.

 

[franklinstower]

I took this post to the lounge.

Good, bye........

 

[Squarechoke]

Making lots of money is not a sin. But the worship of money over God is a sin. Which many rich people fall into that trap.

Making lots of money and keeping it for yourself is a prime example of greed, which is a deadly sin. I know as I'm doing it myself, but I'm not claiming to be part of a religion that calls it a sin at the same time.

 

[Squarechoke]

If the tone of Jesus towards various sinners is indicative of degrees of hell in the hereafter then yes falsely religious people who use religion as a means for personal gain are in massive trouble. Jesus seems genuinely pissed only when dealing with these types.

Yes, if that religion is right the afterlife for them will include very nasty things that their loving god somehow allows to go on for eternity.

 

[Wet Blanket]

So am I bring bumped up to upper class now? Or demoted to lower?

 

[Ripskater]

Good, bye........

Ok I guess. I know you’re mad, but if you change your mind and ever want, pm me and we might be able to clear things up

 

[Ripskater]

Making lots of money and keeping it for yourself is a prime example of greed, which is a deadly sin. I know as I'm doing it myself, but I'm not claiming to be part of a religion that calls it a sin at the same time.

Making lots of money is and saving is not a sin. Job was a rich man, and this is how God described him.
Job 1
8 “Did you notice my servant Job?” the Lord asked. “There is no one on earth as faithful and good as he is. He worships me and is careful not to do anything evil.”

 

[franklinstower]

Yes, if that religion is right the afterlife for them will include very nasty things that their loving god somehow allows to go on for eternity.

Just FYI . I'm with the universalists in this particular subject. I was just discussing it from those people's own point of view.

 

[Wet Blanket]

Making lots of money is and saving is not a sin. Job was a rich man, and this is how God described him.
Job 1
8 “Did you notice my servant Job?” the Lord asked. “There is no one on earth as faithful and good as he is. He worships me and is careful not to do anything evil.”

Well the guy's name is Job so....

 

[Mike]

Not entirely Mike, and although every state participates in Medicaid it does vary from state-to-state where the extent of services available and financial cutoffs are concerned. There are around 73 million Americans currently covered.

I'm speaking from experience here. If you're working full time and you still qualify for Medicaid, you're making either minimum wage or close to it.

 

[Ripskater]

Well the guy's name is Job so....

Lol, good one.

 

[Gandhi]

I'm buying some of that data, but I'd like to know the number of kids per household in relation to reporting financial hardships. Guess what? Kids are really fucking expensive. If you have a household income of less than 150K, maybe it's not smart to have 4 kids. My office does these charity drives twice a year where they pick a couple of low income families each time, and it always appears to be the same story: single mother (or two parents but one can't work), 6 kids, live in a 2 bedroom apartment, car is on its last legs, etc. It's heartbreaking, but I always think "Why in the fuck do you have 6 kids??" Everyone at my office is at least middle class, if not upper, management are 1%ers. Guess how many have more than 3 kids? Fucking zero, because it's piss-poor planning. And the fucking wage gap shit again the article references...yea, because men make it to upper management positions by rolling in at 9 and leaving as soon as the clock strikes 5. Fuck that. Every single person - man or woman - who's even mid management works minimum 50 hours/week. That's going to be extremely challenging with 3 kids, and basically impossible with more than that.

I'm not insensitive to the fact that wages haven't gone up in proportion to the price of housing, services and consumer goods. Something should be done there. But the reality is that too many kids will hold you back, and it's not fair to the kids either. You don't need to have 4, 5 or 6 kids. 2 is plenty to sap all your energy and attention, and if you're really feeling up to it, go for 3. Anything above that, like I said, poor planning.

EDIT: then there's also the fact that there are too many of us already. We don't need more, we need less. If everyone could just understand that, our governments would be forced to take a good hard look at their systems that stop functioning properly once the population levels off - or god forbid - starts to decline.

While you may have some good points here, if overal wealth has gone up at the same time as the wealth of the bottom 3 quintiles in society has stagnated, absent some upward tick in fertility, something is really broken well beyond having too many kids. I know you kind of acknowledge this, but I am just stressing, the data @luckyshot provides is not being driven by more kids.

 

[Squarechoke]

Making lots of money is and saving is not a sin. Job was a rich man, and this is how God described him.
Job 1
8 “Did you notice my servant Job?” the Lord asked. “There is no one on earth as faithful and good as he is. He worships me and is careful not to do anything evil.”

Since the Bible says so much about that you should give to those that have less, even your enemies, he'd have to do that as well if you're rich. Otherwise you're clearly not following all those passages.

Then again god clearly does condone slavery, and other horrible deeds, in the OT so he's not exactly consistent on what's "good".

 

[Gandhi]

Listen, if you are fortunate enough to have a decent gig, and you don’t want to pay Sweden taxes, you’d better tell your boss to tell his homies to pay decent wages... because the more cats are struggling, the higher the chance we comin’ for that cheddar.


If everyone had a marketable skill, guess what?

It wouldn’t be marketable.

It’s science.

Para 1. Taxation and redistribution is the only way to fix this. That or wage regulation which is less effective.

Para 2. Yes and no. More supply lowers price but there is also a wealth effect from having a bigger part of the population have more marketable skills. Wealth per person is capped long term by productivity per person. That’s a reason why taxation is a better method of redistribution than wage regulation. Of course I agree there is more than just “der the market will fix it”.

 

[cottagecheesefan]

While you may have some good points here, if overal wealth has gone up at the same time as the wealth of the bottom 3 quintiles in society has stagnated, absent some upward tick in fertility, something is really broken well beyond having too many kids. I know you kind of acknowledge this, but I am just stressing, the data @luckyshot provides is not being driven by more kids.

There has been an upward tick. The wealth gap was pretty stable after ww2, up until the population boom, which starts in the early 1970s. It is simple math that exponentially increasing the population of the lower class, will exponentially distort the wealth gap. The population spike starts 15 years or so before the wealth gap, but that can be attributed to the first generation of baby boomers reaching adulthood and now being able to have kids. In fact, it pushes people in the upper middle class into the upper class, because the lower class is being flooded.

As for saying that it isn't being driven by more kids, why does the statistical data in the urban areas in the OP differ from the data collected from the country as a whole? Urban areas have an increase in food insecurity (based on the OP), while the population of the US as a whole has actually been decreasing. Urban populations are growing rapidly, where as non urban populations are not. So that seems to imply too many children IS a factor.

 

[Ripskater]

Since the Bible says so much about that you should give to those that have less, even your enemies, he'd have to do that as well if you're rich. Otherwise you're clearly not following all those passages.

Then again god clearly does condone slavery, and other horrible deeds, in the OT so he's not exactly consistent on what's "good".

Your response shows that you don't understand what you're saying about what's in the Bible.

 

[cottagecheesefan]

In terms of fake news, what source is more credible to my fellow posters.

The USDA, which has been tracking food insecurity under Clinton, Bush, Obama, and unfortunately now Trump, which reports half the number, and reports it as decreasing.

Or the Urban Institue, which is referenced in the OP, is almost double the number, and reports it as increasing.

The US government has NOT released 2017 food security statistics.

Pretty big, considering that is the top individual hardship the OP is trying to portray.

 

[ndwolfwood]

In terms of fake news, what source is more credible to my fellow posters.

The USDA, which has been tracking food insecurity under Clinton, Bush, Obama, and unfortunately now Trump, which reports half the number, and reports it as decreasing.

Or the Urban Institue, which is referenced in the OP, is almost double the number, and reports it as increasing.

The US government has NOT released 2017 food security statistics.

Pretty big, considering that is the top individual hardship the OP is trying to portray.

Are you saying the marxists are using misleading data to push for their class wars?

 

[panamaican]

As for saying that it isn't being driven by more kids, why does the statistical data in the urban areas in the OP differ from the data collected from the country as a whole? Urban areas have an increase in food insecurity (based on the OP), while the population of the US as a whole has actually been decreasing. Urban populations are growing rapidly, where as non urban populations are not. So that seems to imply too many children IS a factor.

Or it implies, as we should know, that people are leaving the rural areas and migrating to the urban/suburban areas because the rural areas lack economic and educational opportunities. The only people staying in rural America are those who are already economically well-off enough to disregard that those parts of the country are becoming dead zones for opportunity.

And, no, it's not because urban areas have more kids. It's specifically because people are leaving rural America.

While not an ideal outcome for rural inhabitants, the transition comes with drastic productivity gains. Today’s average American farmer provides food to about 155 people compared to 25.8 people in 1960. [1] The increased output per capita enables millions to work in other industries. The impact from low rural job demand is twofold. First, the industries replacing these jobs are highly specialized and required expensive human investment. Second, rural job’s low wages and physical nature labor are unattractive. These two factors contribute to a “chicken and egg cycle.” Rural inhabitants need to invest in human capital, management namely education. However, they cannot afford this development with their current wages.[2]

The economic shift pushes young people to cities. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of 2014 Economic Analysis, “Real GDP increased in 74% of cities.”[3] Domestically, 20 cities account for over 50% of the nation’s output.[4] Low headcounts in rural areas and the educational requirements of the new labor market leave young adults in rural areas with few employment choices. For instance, 50% of Oregon’s jobs surround its largest city, Portland.

https://publicpolicy.wharton.upenn.edu/live/news/2393-rural-america-is-losing-young-people-

 

[cottagecheesefan]

Are you saying the marxists are using misleading data to push for their class wars?

I did mention earlier in the thread, that the Urban Institute likely has an agenda, and pointed this out. Even the TS responded, ignoring my point, and has failed to respond since. It isnt like Urban areas do not have liberal democrats as their public officials.

I also mentioned the Obama administration passing the Affordable health care act, which helped several stocks of insurance companies. Which helps the wealth gap further expand.

I mentioned both these things, yet no one cared to respond, only bitch and blame others for their situation. Meh. I only bring them up because, are they going to put more democrats in office? What do they expect to be done lol.

Or it implies, as we should know, that people are leaving the rural areas and migrating to the urban/suburban areas because the rural areas lack economic and educational opportunities. The only people staying in rural America are those who are already economically well-off enough to disregard that those parts of the country are becoming dead zones for opportunity.

And, no, it's not because urban areas have more kids. It's specifically because people are leaving rural America.


https://publicpolicy.wharton.upenn.edu/live/news/2393-rural-america-is-losing-young-people-

I am not just attributing it to urban areas, I am attributing it to poor people having babies. This includes poor people in rural areas. Moreover, this response does not address the simple math of adding 5-6 billlion more people withing 60 years, and how that directly distorts the wealth gap ratio. Regardless of where the population boom is happening, it is going to obviously shrink the wealth gap.

edit: I do realize that the US is not an increase of 5-6 billion. But it has more than doubled, and has had a influx of over 10-20 million undocumented people also. So adding over 175 million people kind of throws things off.

edit 2: I also realize you did not comment on the statistics in the OP at all, and completely disregarded anything "urban"