http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/sais/nexteurope/2008/10/rich-poor_gap_widens_in_europe.html
The capitalism system is designed in favour of capital owners, in another word, the people who owns money. The more money you have, the more favour the system rewards you. That's why the rich get richer, and poor get poorer. The wealth created by the whole community will be increasingly concentrated in a small group of people. The middle classes and the alreday poor people will be pushed further into poorer situation. The system like this is approaching to a break point by days, which will cause the collapse of the whole system. When that happens, everybody loses, the rich lose their privilege, the poor lose their underprivilege. Therefore, you can see who is benefiting from the present system and who is deprived by the system. The majority of population is getting poorer by days, do we expect they will quietly suffer from this? No! There will be a revolution for sure. Let's wait and see.
Originally posted by jlillyThe well-documented rise in economic inequality in the United States over the last two decades is somewhat misleading. Almost all Americans, whether considered "rich" or "poor," are better off economically today than in previous times. Furthermore, due to the high degree of income mobility in the United States, most people move between income groups throughout their life, says David R. Henderson, an associate professor of economics at the Naval Postgraduate School and a research fellow with the Hoover Institution.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/sais/nexteurope/2008/10/rich-poor_gap_widens_in_europe.html
The capitalism system is designed in favour of capital owners, in another word, the people who owns money. The more money you have, the more favour the system rewards you. That's why the rich get richer, and poor get poorer. The wealth created by the w ...[text shortened]... ey will quietly suffer from this? No! There will be a revolution for sure. Let's wait and see.
Household income varies substantially for several reasons that are often ignored, including: differences in the number of family members who work and differences in the amount of work.
High-income households are not likely to consist of one person earning a very high income (as is often assumed); rather, they are likely to have two or more income earners:
* In 2006, a whopping 81.4 percent of families in the top income quintile had two or more people working, and only 2.2 percent had no one working.
* By contrast, only 12.6 percent of families in the bottom quintile had two or more people working; 39.2 percent had no one working.
* The average number of earners per family for the top group was 2.16, almost three times the 0.76 average for the bottom.
Census data show a large difference in full-time work and in the number of weeks worked in a year:
* Less than one-third of families in the lowest quintile had a head of household working full-time; in the top quintile, more than three-fourths of families did.
* Thus, average families in the top group have many more weeks of work than those in the bottom and, in the late 1970s, the 12-to-1 total income ratio shrunk to only 2-to-1 per week of work, according to one analysis.
Source: David R. Henderson, "Economic Inequality: Facts, Theory and Significance," National Center for Policy Analysis, Policy Report No. 312, June 10, 2008.
Less than one-third of families in the lowest quintile had a head of household working full-time; in the top quintile, more than three-fourths of families did.
Yeah, life sucks for single moms. It really sucks when the single mom has to hold down multiple part time jobs because she can't find a job that is willing to give her perks like health insurance.
Originally posted by der schwarze Rittermay be its those high income families with2 or more earners that screw it up for the low income families with 2 or more low wage jobs.
The well-documented rise in economic inequality in the United States over the last two decades is somewhat misleading. Almost all Americans, whether considered "rich" or "poor," are better off economically today than in previous times. Furthermore, due to the high degree of income mobility in the United States, most people move between income g ...[text shortened]... Significance," National Center for Policy Analysis, Policy Report No. 312, June 10, 2008.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterI love it when you blame the worker.
The well-documented rise in economic inequality in the United States over the last two decades is somewhat misleading. Almost all Americans, whether considered "rich" or "poor," are better off economically today than in previous times. Furthermore, due to the high degree of income mobility in the United States, most people move between income g ...[text shortened]... Significance," National Center for Policy Analysis, Policy Report No. 312, June 10, 2008.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterWhy are they all complaining about their bloody houses then?
The well-documented rise in economic inequality in the United States over the last two decades is somewhat misleading. Almost all Americans, whether considered "rich" or "poor," are better off economically today than in previous times. Furthermore, due to the high degree of income mobility in the United States, most people move between income g ...[text shortened]... Significance," National Center for Policy Analysis, Policy Report No. 312, June 10, 2008.
Bunch of whining maggots. They get the system they deserve.
Originally posted by EladarYou know what the solution to that is? Don't make babies without being married.
[b]Less than one-third of families in the lowest quintile had a head of household working full-time; in the top quintile, more than three-fourths of families did.
Yeah, life sucks for single moms. It really sucks when the single mom has to hold down multiple part time jobs because she can't find a job that is willing to give her perks like health insurance.[/b]
Originally posted by jlillyIf one has talent and is prepared to work hard and take risks then one will usually succeed. Thoae lacking one or more of these ingredients will usually not. So what are you griping about?
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/sais/nexteurope/2008/10/rich-poor_gap_widens_in_europe.html
The capitalism system is designed in favour of capital owners, in another word, the people who owns money. The more money you have, the more favour the system rewards you. That's why the rich get richer, and poor get poorer. The wealth created by the w ...[text shortened]... ey will quietly suffer from this? No! There will be a revolution for sure. Let's wait and see.
Originally posted by jlillyYou are not an english major are you?
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/sais/nexteurope/2008/10/rich-poor_gap_widens_in_europe.html
The capitalism system is designed in favour of capital owners, in another word, the people who owns money. The more money you have, the more favour the system rewards you. That's why the rich get richer, and poor get poorer. The wealth created by the w ...[text shortened]... ey will quietly suffer from this? No! There will be a revolution for sure. Let's wait and see.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterIt seems to work perfectly well for the rest of the animal kingdom.
Why? That's way things have been up until the last 40 years and it worked fine. The government is no substitute for a father.
And it worked quite well for humans for the last 100.000 years (give or take the last couple of centuries).
Or, in your case, the last 1000 years or whatever the hell you believe.