Income Inequality, Is It Unavoidable

ironman32's picture
Rank: Neanderthal | 3,942

Income inequality, a topic that gets discussed a lot here.

I've been reading up on it, namely books and a lot of articles. Would like to hear other's thoughts on it.

My main thought is, would it be unavoidable? I feel there are two classes of people with money. Basically, those who know how to get it from others, and those who know how to give it up. I've heard things like universal basic income, but wouldn't the people who already spent everything they have spend that as well. For example, won't people who live paycheck to paycheck now and have Netflix still live paycheck to paycheck with a higher paycheck, but just have Netflix and Hulu?

Comments (161)

Jun 10, 2019

Yes it is basically unavoidable because the harsh reality is some people are better at learning the system, exploiting the weaknesses, and continuously acquiring resources. That is where the government is supposed to come in (to protect the people) and bridge the gap through regulations and taxation efforts. We have seen that chipped away over the past couple of decades and now you're here. The corporations and the ultra wealthy run the government and write the rules and its still getting worse. Trump does not scare me because he is incompetent and a fool. He scares me because he broke the barrier on the private sector crossing over to the head of the government.

    • 1
    • 7
Most Helpful
Jun 10, 2019

Found on the internet...

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Sanders's proposed socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich; a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Sanders's plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the third test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, all failed and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

It could not be any simpler than that.

    • 69
    • 2
Jun 10, 2019

Awesome

Jun 10, 2019

"To their great surprise, all failed and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed."

I generally agree with the paragraph above but I think Sanders's intentions are good in that he wants to fix the escalating costs of health care and higher education. Of course, his version of "free" means that taxes would rise. I do not agree with the way he wants to pay for this.

The current and expected future costs of health care and higher education are outrageous. If you are a parent in a middle class family, the cost for a majority of schools would range from $100,000 for public schools to close to $300,000 for private schools. If you are poor and smart, you can probably get a scholarship. If you are wealthy, the costs may not matter all that much. Middle class families with multiple kids will have an an issue when it comes to paying for college. The situation with health care is not much better.

I would vote for anyone who can get a proposal through congress that would fix these issues.

    • 3
    • 1
Jun 10, 2019
financeabc:

I generally agree with the paragraph above but I think Sanders's intentions are good in that he wants to fix the escalating costs of health care and higher education. Of course, his version of "free" means that taxes would rise. I do not agree with the way he wants to pay for this.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. I don't doubt the Democratic Socialists' sincerity; I doubt their understanding of the law of supply and demand. I doubt their competence. I doubt their knowledge.

Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Jun 11, 2019

I listened to Paul Ryan speak at length at the last major NIC conference about America's healthcare predicament. In summary, we are totally fucked. There is a dramatic increasing shortage of doctors and nurses around the country. Major hospital systems are lucky to break even. Obese and drug addict Americans clog the treatment pipeline, costing healthy taxpayers billions while taking zero accountability for their personal health. Much of this issue is because Monsanto bought the FDA and manipulated the food pyramid taught in public school which teaches children that a diet full of un-digestible empty carbs is a healthy normal diet. The average American lives a sedentary lifestyle which, on its own, causes a myriad of health problems that could easily avoided by a brisk 30 minute walk each day. Cigarettes, soda, fast food, etc...

It is no mystery why our healthcare system is so broken. As a culture, outside of the educated upper class, America takes little to no personal responsibility for health and wellness.

Meanwhile, California okays Medicaid for illegal immigrants while Vietnam veterans starve in the streets with mental illness.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48585037

    • 9
Jun 10, 2019

100% didn't happen, but I agree with the moral of the story

Funniest
Jun 10, 2019

I'll take "things that never happened" for $1,000, Alex. Did a Boomer send you this?

    • 8
    • 8
Jun 11, 2019

[Deleted]

Jun 11, 2019

Gross oversimplification of the year

    • 1
Jun 11, 2019
Jun 11, 2019

To all the losers above - of course this didn't happen. The point is what's important. Similar to the tax system as explained with beer.

https://www.moorestephens.co.uk/msuk/moore-stephen...

    • 1
Jun 11, 2019

The problem with this point of view is that it applies only if one thinks money/grades are the only thing that matters. In reality that is not the case, because otherwise we would not do anything that doesn't directly bring us those outcomes. But people actually volunteer and pursue hobbies for no monetary reward, just as people read and learn outside of the classroom. There are incentives beyond money and it is not the case that if everybody received the same income or are equally as wealthy, nobody would want to do anything productive. That's a very myopic view of humanity.

    • 2
    • 1
Jun 10, 2019
sheldonxp:

The problem with this point of view is that it applies only if one thinks money/grades are the only thing that matters. In reality that is not the case, because otherwise we would not do anything that doesn't directly bring us those outcomes. But people actually volunteer and pursue hobbies for no monetary reward, just as people read and learn outside of the classroom. There are incentives beyond money and it is not the case that if everybody received the same income or are equally as wealthy, nobody would want to do anything productive. That's a very myopic view of humanity.

That's fine. Just don't bother me for support when you're hungry, cold, homelesss, etc.

Jun 15, 2019

I hate that this has so many likes because it didn't happen. Unless this is a clown college instead of an accredited institution. Economics professors absolutely think markets are a good way to allocate scarce resources. But they generally aren't wingnut morons either lol. They see shades of grey and complexity. Most public policy issues are trickier than you can convey with some trivial 100 word parable with no math.

"It could not be any simpler than that" at the end was hilarious self-parody.

This story sounds straight from the brain of a 50-year-old Republican boomer without any real economics background. I actually agree with the moral of the story at a 50,000 foot level, but dumb offends me 100000x more than disagreeing with my politics

    • 3
    • 1
Jun 11, 2019

yeah, its like a parody of a jacob wohl tweet

also I love that the fake economics professor mixed up communism and socialism

60+ bananas... WSO off topic forum has become the twilight zone

Jun 15, 2019

that's very interesting, thanks for sharing
but are you sure it's a true story?

Jun 17, 2019

This is so unbelievably dumb and not a representation of real life.

    • 2
    • 1
Jun 24, 2019

I am shocked by the number of people who think that you think this is real when you open up the post by saying "Found on the internet...". These same people then go on to attack you and others saying they can't believe how dumb people are for agreeing with the point of the post. Clearly lacking reading comprehension.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Jun 10, 2019

Inequality is unavoidable unless you want shared misery, and historically the only way it is reduced is through war, famines/natural disasters, state collapse, and revolutions. Walter Scheidel writes about this in his book. History isn't destiny, but it is something to think about.

Also, you could argue globally inequality has been reduced. It just so happens that the low and middle-skilled folks in the developed nations have been on the wrong side of globalization and automation.

But what's interesting is that inequality is present even among white-collar professions (law, medicine, trading) and you can argue it's gotten worse since the 80s or so. If you're an educated person living in a large city, you'll have a hard time getting ahead if you're not in the right areas (i.e. growing and allow you to capture a large share of the value you create). So it's not just the low and middle-skilled people that have to contend with the consequences of inequality.

    • 1
Jun 10, 2019

Income inequality is unavoidable. The concern with the economy right now, is that it is expanding specifically against certain spots across the country. Income inequality is fine when there are specific roles with different levels of income or socioeconomic status. But the issue is whether some roles are disappearing altogether.

    • 1
Jun 10, 2019

When you say "against certain spots across the country," are you saying some parts are prospering at the expense of others?

Jun 10, 2019
CAS_89:

When you say "against certain spots across the country," are you saying some parts are prospering at the expense of others?

There may be a structural issue unrealistically solved by moving or retraining at today's prices.

Jun 10, 2019
iBankedUp:

Income inequality is unavoidable. The concern with the economy right now, is that it is expanding specifically

/Thread

Image

    • 1
Jun 10, 2019

If a person works for 30 years and still have not figured out how to improve his wealth and income, there is no hope for him.

Cash and cash equivalents: $138,311
Financial instruments and other inventory positions owned: $448,166

    • 1
Jun 10, 2019

Inequality is inevitable even if you make the generous assumption that income equality is possible. There will just be different metrics that people use: power, influence, attractiveness, other skills. Stratification is built into all life.

Jun 10, 2019
Synergy_or_Syzygy:

Inequality is inevitable even if you make the generous assumption that income equality is possible. There will just be different metrics that people use: power, influence, attractiveness, other skills. Stratification is built into all life.

I agree. The life of a handsome man is very different than the life of an ugly man.

Jun 10, 2019

Political systems are ways to allocate resources. Capitalism allocates resources based on efficiency, so if you can do more with the same amount, or make the same amount with less, resources will come your way. So, resources will flow to those who are more efficient. There's your inequality. Some people are more efficient than others in the things they do. Do they deserve more? Capitalism leans towards Yes.

Jun 10, 2019

I have no problems with taxing the shit out of idle cash not actively being reinvested in actual economically beneficial activity.

The middle class is pretty fucked in the US IMO and unfairly so...

Jun 10, 2019

"The upper-middle and middle class indirectly subsidize the upper and lower classes through transfers of wealth" was something I remember reading, but I don't know how true it is.

Jun 10, 2019

I think I might support Warren's wealth tax. Afterall, it's completely Constitutional as a property tax is precedent. It's a low rate, and although her numbers might be lofty, it has the potential to generate some real net positive revenue to the government, while she has a plan on how the funds can be used.

    • 1
    • 3
Jun 10, 2019
iBankedUp:

I think I might support Warren's wealth tax. Afterall, it's completely Constitutional as a property tax is precedent. It's a low rate, and although her numbers might be lofty, it has the potential to generate some real net positive revenue to the government, while she has a plan on how the funds can be used.

Wealth tax is a fully ridiculous plan, if for no other reason than equity is opinion and debt is fact. There is absolutely no way you'd actually be taxing someone at their real level of wealth because the wealthy would pay consultants to make sure they are poor on paper. It's a fully unenforceable tax with countless strategies to ensure your paper poverty. If it were enforceable, it would create all kinds of perverse incentives for hiding wealth and taking on debt and not investing.

Jun 10, 2019
real_Skankhunt42:

There is absolutely no way you'd actually be taxing someone at their real level of wealth because the wealthy would pay consultants to make sure they are poor on paper.

Just a complete decay of morality, tbh. Essentially it's a lie.

Jun 11, 2019
iBankedUp:

I think I might support Warren's wealth tax. Afterall, it's completely Constitutional as a property tax is precedent. It's a low rate, and although her numbers might be lofty, it has the potential to generate some real net positive revenue to the government, while she has a plan on how the funds can be used.

Does the government have a revenue problem or an expense problem?

Jun 10, 2019
TechBanking:

Does the government have a revenue problem or an expense problem?

Both. Too many existing obligations. No new sources of revenue.

    • 1
    • 1
Jun 11, 2019

Do you think the US Federal government is able to efficiently allocate capital? Are you not paying attention how horribly taxpayer funds have been mismanaged over the past two decades?

The only way this MIGHT work is if a tax on direct dividend/rent income was applied as a direct payment to working families with children - no funds lost in translation by gross government ineptitude. The problem with this idea is the resulting incentive for domestic wealth to leave the US in order to avoid the tax.

    • 1
Jun 10, 2019

I sincerely think no one will want to do business in the USA anymore. Our economy would just collapse. I could be wrong.

No pain no game.

Jun 10, 2019

I've thought about this and as others have said I think there's a clear answer if we want to keep anything remotely close to our society now. WolfofWSO hit the nail on the head talking about incentives. If we do a thought experiment and we suppose everyone to be equal in opportunity in say, high school pretending that they only exist (Which is a silly assumption) even then income inequality will become inevitable as somebody will 1. Work harder than another person leading to better reputation, income, crop yield, whatever and 2. Take on risks with starting new businesses that end up making (some) of them rich. I guess the question is how to get non motivated people to a stronger work ethic.

    • 1
    • 1
Jun 11, 2019

A huge problem in America is massive cultural differences between ethnic groups resulting in dramatic income/wealth disparities. All handouts serve to do is block the incentive for certain groups to compete. Without competition there are no positive incomes.

    • 1
Jun 11, 2019

Care to name some of these large massive ethnic differences hmm?

Ty

    • 1
Jun 11, 2019

Key drivers of inequality:
-environmental upbringing/parents
-effort
-intelligence
-interest

The latter is particularly important. Let's pick two twins: same gender, same education, same environment. For all intent and purpose, nature vs nurture are both excluded in this case, so that we don't even have to debate which one is the driver of inequality.

Now, one twin likes sports, the other likes coding. One might become a good football player, the other a mediocre coder, or vice versa. So, even two people who are genetically as similar as they can be and grew up within the same environment will ultimately achieve unequal outcome as soon as they pick different hobbies.

How do you achieve equality (of outcome) then? Prevent people from choosing what they want to do. That's the Soviet Union.
The real deal is whether we want to correct inequality of opportunity or inequality of outcome. Equality of opportunity leads to unequal outcomes, because intelligence, effort, interests (and luck) play a role. Equality of outcome inevitably requires eliminating equality of opportunity. You have to repress the winners, thus limiting their opportunities.

The debate in the US is mislead by ideologues who intentionally speak vaguely of ''inequality'' without actually defining it. In many cases, feminists, social justice advocates talk about ''equality'' in terms of leveling the playfield, which is opportunities, but when you look at their real goals, it's outcome.

A noteworthy bs that came up recently is this study: dodgeball as tool of oppression.
https://nationalpost.com/news/dodgeball-isnt-just-...
Why? Because it has unequal outcomes, as skilled and physically able players outperform the rest. The paper goes beyond that and you see how dangerous these people actually are: the problem with dodgeball is that it allows captains to pick their teams, thus ''exclude'' lesser competent players. In their ideal liberal democracy, ''inclusion'' is a core value. How do you include? You restrict freedom of choice or eliminate it altogether. It reminds me Brave New World where people are not allowed to choose their sexual partners but are pressured to accept everyone. It'll come down to that evetually.

At the end of the day, you have to decide which inequality you want to avoid: opportunity or outcome? It's one or the other. It's not that they are both unavoidable, to some degree they are, but one implies significantly more severe restrictions of liberities than the other. Equality of opportunity, in the worst case, requires a 100% tax in inheritance. Annoying? Sure. Equality of outcome, in the worst case, requires a chip in the brain to obligate you to perform at the level of others.

    • 10
Jun 11, 2019

+1 SB

Jun 11, 2019

Income inequality will only continue to be exacerbated when labor supply (both white and blue collar) continues to outpace demand. If you rolled back America to 1960 and continued on without the Immigration of 1965, real wages would have grown at parity with GDP growth, greatly improving the current average outcome for the average American worker.

In addition, artificially low interest rates have ballooned housing prices. The current average multiple of average housing price in a good school district in major American cities is often 4-6x that of the median household income. A healthy historical multiple has been 2-3x (assuming normalized interest rates). This has made it difficult for many millennial starter families to buy homes.

    • 5
Jun 11, 2019

This is absurd. The folks who claim income inequality (or wealth inequality) is a problem are not advocating that we eliminate income inequality altogether. The problem is that having a healthy middle class is, well, healthy. As more wealth gets concentrated at the top of the pyramid, you create a larger and larger underclass of people who aren't deriving any benefit from the systems in place. That is the danger. If I'm a part time worker at WalMart making a wage on which I cannot live a life that makes me reasonably content, have no healthcare, no safety net, no nothing... what do I have to gain by supporting the system? Nothing. What do I have to lose? Almost nothing. If people can see a reasonable chance that their lives might improve, then they're happy to keep striving for that. But when you bust your ass and the fruits of that labor goes overwhelmingly to stockholders or owners, and your right where you started... that is the kind of inequality or perceived injustice that leads to radical reforms. The Progressive Era didn't magically spring up; it came about because most people looked around and realized that society and civil government wasn't providing them with anything, that all the benefits of the system were employed on behalf of the wealthy, and voted to change that, in a big way. Social Security wasn't some fluke idea; it came about because people realized that the common worker had no safety net, no nothing, once they were too old to earn a wage, and society as a whole rejected the idea that a human's life loses its value once they become too elderly or infirm to work.

    • 3
Jun 11, 2019

I'm on the other end of the political spectrum from you but this is basically my thought. I'll just keep it at "something's got to give" if your average middle class worker can't support a family. I don't think that's calling for some Marxist workers revolt, or denying supply and demand, etc etc

Jun 11, 2019

Social Security itself isn't the main issue. The fact that politicians refuse to raise the age necessary to draw on it, and the fact that we are on pace to have 2-3 workers supporting each Social Security recipient, down from >50x or wherever it was when it started (because people live way longer and have fewer kids now), is the big issue.

Jun 11, 2019

Social Security itself is a huge issue. Those funds were never earmarked and go straight to paying off our enormous out of control Federal spending.

Jun 11, 2019

I think you're missing my point. I'm not concerned in the context of this discussion to know why Social Security is failing. I want to know why we have it in the first place. The answer is in the name. When people feel that the system isn't working to their benefit, and that they struggle and toil and see nothing in return, they demand large scale, drastic, radical changes. Whether that was the imposition of the income tax or the creation of social security, the point is that folks want to see that government is working for them, not for the benefit and protection of a privileged few. Nor do calls for redistribution of wealth mean that the end goal is the nationalization of wealth and full socialism that implies. People merely want to feel like if they work hard and have a small bit of luck, they can better their lives. At this point, over the last 40 years... they wouldn't be entirely wrong in disbelieving that proposition. Most Americans seem to be a very minor misfortune away from total ruin, and the continuing push by conservative politicians to exacerbate that will only result in a sharper blowback when it comes. I know politicians in general are shortsighted, but I can never imagine how so few of them pay attention to the lessons of history.

Saying that food stamps can only be used to buy bland but nutrition-rich foods, that anyone who owns an iPhone or wants to go on vacation is clearly not poor enough, as if wanting minor luxuries in your life and not spending every cent on food is somehow not being poor... those are the kinds of attitudes that lead to large scale social unrest. People are people, and telling them they can only have help if their life is some miserably, utterly unlivable wreck due to poverty isn't compassionate and won't placate those folks. I see so many people on this website assume that somehow their right to hold private property is inviolable and could never be challenged - you have as many rights as your neighbors give you, and when we continue to erode the trust that most citizens have that the system is reasonably just and reasonably compassionate, we risk toppling the entire thing. Universal healthcare, or a 60 income tax, might take a bigger chunk out of your paycheck today, but in the long run its a lot cheaper than what the historical alternatives have been.

Jun 11, 2019

If I'm a part time worker at WalMart making a wage on which I cannot live a life that makes me reasonably content, have no healthcare, no safety net, no nothing... what do I have to gain by supporting the system?

Wait I think the crux of our argument for this point is about working part-time, full-time, or multiple jobs. If you cannot afford to live on a part-time job or even a full-time job, why aren't you getting a second job? Plenty of people do it...

Also, a 40 hour work week is not a right.

I do think something has to give though and agree with some of your other points.

Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Jun 11, 2019

Yeah, human beings are born unequal. Now, this gets a bit philosophical so feel free to stop reading now, but look at Robert Nozick's Wilt Chamberlain argument;

He asks us to assume that the original distribution in society, D1 is ordered by our choice of patterned principle, for instance Rawls's Difference Principle. Wilt Chamberlain is an extremely popular basketball player in this society, and Nozick further assumes 1 million people are willing to freely give WC 25 cents each to watch him play basketball over the course of a season (we assume no other transactions occur). Wilt now has $250,000, a much larger sum than any of the other people in the society. The new distribution in society, call it D2, obviously is no longer ordered by our favored pattern that ordered D1. However Nozick argues that D2 is just. For if each agent freely exchanges some of his D1 share with WC and D1 was a just distribution (we know D1 was just, because it was ordered according to your favorite patterned principle of distribution), how can D2 fail to be a just distribution? Thus Nozick argues that what the Wilt Chamberlain example shows is that no patterned principle of just distribution will be compatible with liberty. In order to preserve the pattern which arranged D1, the state will have to continually interfere with people's ability to freely exchange their D1 shares. For any exchange of D1 shares explicitly involves violating the pattern that originally ordered it.

This argument does NOT refute mildly progressive taxation, or a small UBI, but it does defeat the Harrison Bergeron type eqalitarian-based leveling.

Jun 12, 2019
goldmanstax1:

Yeah, human beings are born unequal. Now, this gets a bit philosophical so feel free to stop reading now, but look at Robert Nozick's Wilt Chamberlain argument;

He asks us to assume that the original distribution in society, D1 is ordered by our choice of patterned principle, for instance Rawls's Difference Principle. Wilt Chamberlain is an extremely popular basketball player in this society, and Nozick further assumes 1 million people are willing to freely give WC 25 cents each to watch him play basketball over the course of a season (we assume no other transactions occur). Wilt now has $250,000, a much larger sum than any of the other people in the society. The new distribution in society, call it D2, obviously is no longer ordered by our favored pattern that ordered D1. However Nozick argues that D2 is just. For if each agent freely exchanges some of his D1 share with WC and D1 was a just distribution (we know D1 was just, because it was ordered according to your favorite patterned principle of distribution), how can D2 fail to be a just distribution? Thus Nozick argues that what the Wilt Chamberlain example shows is that no patterned principle of just distribution will be compatible with liberty. In order to preserve the pattern which arranged D1, the state will have to continually interfere with people's ability to freely exchange their D1 shares. For any exchange of D1 shares explicitly involves violating the pattern that originally ordered it.

This argument does NOT refute mildly progressive taxation, or a small UBI, but it does defeat the Harrison Bergeron type eqalitarian-based leveling.

Can't one argue that progressive taxation is immoral from a Nozickian standpoint, as the government is taking a higher % of one's earnings based upon how much he makes?

Jun 11, 2019

Kind of. Although, I did say "mildly" progressive, which I don't think the Chamberlain argument actually refutes because people can still be free to choose (for the most part) what they want to do if even if they have to pay "mild" taxes.

Nozick himself doesn't mince words on taxation though, he said that "Taxation of earnings from labor is on a par with forced labor. Seizing the results of someone's labor is equivalent to seizing hours from him and directing him to carry on various activities."

Nozick did eventually retreat from some of the hardball libertarian ideas he presents in Anarchy, State, and Utopia later in life.

Jun 12, 2019

It's always unavoidable to a degree no doubt, but IMO it's unfair to use that as an argument against policies that try to lessen it. "Perfect" might be unattainable but that doesn't mean we should stop trying for better.

Jun 13, 2019

I agree that we will never obtain "perfect", but it betters when wealth is distributed a bit more evenly. You could argue in the 50s and 60s (maybe the 70s) income was a lot more distributed among certain populations; however, I don't have the stats to back that up.

I think in every generation in America, there was always the "have" and "have nots". What I think is the current issue is that everything now is a lot more visual. So the rural farmers/people in distressed situations see more of the glamour others live in, which is where the argument comes from.

There is also my other point that some people just don't know how to handle money and can't build wealth. This puts them on a lower wealth and economic rung than someone who understands these things.

    • 1
Jun 10, 2019

Money Management and education towards managing wealth has always been an issue for lower-income neighborhoods. Too many people are obsessed with spending whatever they earn on branded-luxury goods and getting by paycheck to paycheck (with govt assistance of course).

@ironman32 - you think if people had access to educational resources it would help people build wealth?

No pain no game.

Jun 13, 2019

I like to call it "income diversity"

    • 2
Jun 14, 2019

I'm pretty sure we're all gonna make the same amount of money when we die.

Jun 15, 2019

Maybe if the FED and every other central bank in the developed world stopped printing money out of thin air on a massive scale and lowering rates below zero asset prices (stocks, housing, etc.) wouldn't be at such ridiculous levels. Thus, disproportionately benefiting those who actually own assets (hint: it's not the poor people working at Walmart/McDonalds) and making it even harder for the average worker to own any assets of their own. Large scale wealth transfer, increased inequality, and continued robbing of the lower class without them even realizing it, genius!

Jun 10, 2019

It's not just the lower classes that the QE hurts, its everyone who does not own assets. So if you're an educated person making (what will hopefully be) an upper-middle-class wage in a big city, but you don't have any inheritance, you're worse off than you would have been pre-2008. Housing is probably the big problem because a lot of these jobs are centred in metros with zoning restrictions, so there's no alternative for these young people besides paying ever-increasing rents in non-purpose built housing (renting a condo).

Jun 15, 2019

100% agree with you. Housing is definitely a big issue, as you said, most of the middle/upper middle type jobs are found in big cities mainly on the west/east coasts. Wages haven't nearly kept pace with the level of asset price increases post QE making it exponentially harder for individuals who do not have any inheritances or hit it really big to afford a home. It's just not profitable either to build more modest housing given the costs. I think we're reaching a tipping point and you are starting to see people just saying F' this and migrating to more affordable locations in the Midwest/South even if that means taking a salary cut. You would think with the level of remote technology we have now a days you should be able to really work from almost anywhere depending on the type of work.

https://thetortoiseapproach.com/why-does-it-feel-s...

Jun 15, 2019

.... yes?

Jun 16, 2019

I believe it is 100% unavoidable. Let's get this first out of the way, there will be people born into an opportunity that will make them more successful than others. There is a difference between book smarts and street smarts. it is completely rare to find someone who knows both. You would find someone with book smarts at an IVY. You would find someone with street smarts working a basic street jobs or on the block if the get the drift. Life is unfair and will never be in always someone's favor, your purpose should be to level the playing field as equal as possible as much as possible.

Jun 17, 2019
Comment
Jun 19, 2019
Jun 24, 2019
Comment

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Jun 25, 2019
Comment