Oh, Riddler... You lost our bet. (Number Of U.S. Millionaires Soared In 2009)

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2010 12:23 AM GMT
    Apparently, I was right that the "Great Recession" has turned out okay for the wealthy, while working people are still screwed. I guess you owe me some money. icon_wink.gif

    It's actually a bet I wouldn't have minded losing, if it meant that American families were better off than I thought. icon_cry.gif

    Huffington PostThe number of U.S. households with a net worth of $1 million or more -- excluding wealth derived from a primary residence -- grew 16 percent last year. After a 27 percent decline in the number of millionaire households in 2008, the ranks of U.S. millionaires swelled to 7.8 million last year.

    And it was an even better year to be an "Ultra High Net Worth Individual," defined as someone with a net worth of $5 million or more. That population grew 17 percent in 2009 to 980,000.


    The number of American millionaires seems to have risen in tandem with both work productivity growth and, unfortunately, with the unemployment rate, which has hovered around 10 percent in the last few months.

    While productivity growth signals heightened efficiency, it also generally means that companies require fewer workers, so the country's rapid rise in productivity -- which surged 6.2 percent last quarter -- may be, as a recent paper put it, one of the "main drivers" of the jobless recovery.

    Of course, household incomes have been growing unevenly for years -- even during times of seeming prosperity. For 2007, the year for which the most recent data is available, the top one percent of earners -- those with incomes of at least $398,000 per year -- enjoyed a 6.8 percent growth (versus the 3.7 percent average), boosting their share of the country's total income to 23.5 percent.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2010 12:43 AM GMT
    And here I thought that "rich get richer/poor poorer" was a relic of '60s protest songs... Nyuk nyuk nyuk.
  • t0theheights

    Posts: 428

    Mar 10, 2010 1:05 AM GMT
    Where is SouthBeach to call you a Socialist for... quoting obvious facts? That's apparently his only response to any argument he can't counter -- just like every other selfish brainwashed conservative. icon_rolleyes.gif


    I can't say those statistics surprise me. It's a sad and increasingly consistent trend showing where the U.S. is going. It won't be long before we can all but kiss the Middle Class goodbye, especially if the Tea-Baggers and conservatives get their way.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2010 3:24 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidActually it makes sense.

    In 2008 the stock market peaked and then crashed, hitting bottom in March of 2009. Anyone who had cash on hand to invest starting in March of 09 saw their investments grow by 78% on average.

    People on here who resent those who actually see their wealth increase have a very peculiar way of looking at our country and our economic system. At the heart of the resentment is a belief that wealth should be distributed more equally.

    Name it what you will, but it isn't American and it isn't capitalist.


    Who are you to say so definitively what is American and what isn't? (OK, if you said that Proust wasn't American, I wouldn't argue with you about that.) For that matter, can you really say what the Founding Fathers (a pretty disparate group in any case) would feel today about unfettered capitalism?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2010 3:26 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidApparently, I was right that the "Great Recession" has turned out okay for the wealthy, while working people are still screwed. I guess you owe me some money. icon_wink.gif

    It's actually a bet I wouldn't have minded losing, if it meant that American families were better off than I thought. icon_cry.gif

    Huffington PostThe number of U.S. households with a net worth of $1 million or more -- excluding wealth derived from a primary residence -- grew 16 percent last year. After a 27 percent decline in the number of millionaire households in 2008, the ranks of U.S. millionaires swelled to 7.8 million last year.

    And it was an even better year to be an "Ultra High Net Worth Individual," defined as someone with a net worth of $5 million or more. That population grew 17 percent in 2009 to 980,000.


    The number of American millionaires seems to have risen in tandem with both work productivity growth and, unfortunately, with the unemployment rate, which has hovered around 10 percent in the last few months.

    While productivity growth signals heightened efficiency, it also generally means that companies require fewer workers, so the country's rapid rise in productivity -- which surged 6.2 percent last quarter -- may be, as a recent paper put it, one of the "main drivers" of the jobless recovery.

    Of course, household incomes have been growing unevenly for years -- even during times of seeming prosperity. For 2007, the year for which the most recent data is available, the top one percent of earners -- those with incomes of at least $398,000 per year -- enjoyed a 6.8 percent growth (versus the 3.7 percent average), boosting their share of the country's total income to 23.5 percent.


    The equities markets came back.. so of course there would be a bounce back with the number of wealthy people... a lot of people lost this status in 08 with the crisis.. so when the markets bounced back these people regained that status... so of course ur numbers will looked distorted..
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Mar 10, 2010 3:31 AM GMT
    So the Next time some shyster republican comes out saying ......
    we need to cut more taxes
    or
    stop the "Death Tax"
    and
    calling for "trickle down" economic policy

    You're going to know .... because you've seen it youself
    That he's lying through his ass ........................................... Right?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2010 3:46 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said People on here who resent those who actually see their wealth increase have a very peculiar way of looking at our country and our economic system. At the heart of the resentment is a belief that wealth should be distributed more equally.

    Name it what you will, but it isn't American and it isn't capitalist.


    The fact of the matter is that you know very little about the other people on here. My partner's parents are among those millionaires. I don't begrudge them their wealth. In fact, I don't think that anyone on here begrudges people their success.

    But at the same time many of us believe that those with the most should take care of those with the least. And a responsibility to contribute back to the society that helped make them so wealthy.

    Perhaps instead of a accusing those of us with more progressive politics of being anti-American or anti-capitalist, you should think about why you're so uncaring and greedy.

    As Warren Buffett said: "it is class warfare and my class is winning. It shouldn't be but it is."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2010 4:13 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidApparently, I was right that the "Great Recession" has turned out okay for the wealthy, while working people are still screwed. I guess you owe me some money. icon_wink.gif

    It's actually a bet I wouldn't have minded losing, if it meant that American families were better off than I thought. icon_cry.gif

    Huffington PostThe number of U.S. households with a net worth of $1 million or more -- excluding wealth derived from a primary residence -- grew 16 percent last year. After a 27 percent decline in the number of millionaire households in 2008, the ranks of U.S. millionaires swelled to 7.8 million last year.

    And it was an even better year to be an "Ultra High Net Worth Individual," defined as someone with a net worth of $5 million or more. That population grew 17 percent in 2009 to 980,000.


    The number of American millionaires seems to have risen in tandem with both work productivity growth and, unfortunately, with the unemployment rate, which has hovered around 10 percent in the last few months.

    While productivity growth signals heightened efficiency, it also generally means that companies require fewer workers, so the country's rapid rise in productivity -- which surged 6.2 percent last quarter -- may be, as a recent paper put it, one of the "main drivers" of the jobless recovery.

    Of course, household incomes have been growing unevenly for years -- even during times of seeming prosperity. For 2007, the year for which the most recent data is available, the top one percent of earners -- those with incomes of at least $398,000 per year -- enjoyed a 6.8 percent growth (versus the 3.7 percent average), boosting their share of the country's total income to 23.5 percent.


    Heh - I was thinking about you today. I didn't respond to a couple of your questions previously but your questions got buried by the time I saw them.

    First off, as your report points out, you're taking the data from probably the lowest inflection point. As it states earlier - "After a 27 percent decline in the number of millionaire households in 2008" - so it dropped 27%! and then "surged" 16%? By my limited math that means the US is still under water on millionaires. Also I'm going to guess that the variation in networths for those at upper end of the scale are going to be a lot less extreme than that of the rest of Americans. It is however indicative of the leanings of Huffington Post in what numbers they've chosen to note and indicate.

    I note further that Reuters reported according to Wikipedia: "After the 27 percent drop, the number of millionaires is at the lowest level since 2003, when the millionaire population stood at 6.2 million."

    Ok so that was an easy one - given you posted the answer for me - so based on these numbers I think you owe me icon_wink.gif

    But you asked me before what industries we've seen net gains from deregulation - there are a lot of them at least in US history - airlines (gotta love cheap flights), the evidence is mixed on energy - some states have implemented it better than others (and I would argue it was an implementation issue there but I'm sure you'd disagree), transportation is another one that has seen significant gains since deregulation. Oh and free trade though I'm not sure if you count that or not as being part of deregulation - and it's also not an issue that is as reflexively partisan as both Charlie Rangel and Hillary Clinton were strong supporters of free trade in the past - but deregulation of trade rules has meant better lives for nearly all of us.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2010 4:24 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said People on here who resent those who actually see their wealth increase have a very peculiar way of looking at our country and our economic system. At the heart of the resentment is a belief that wealth should be distributed more equally.

    Name it what you will, but it isn't American and it isn't capitalist.


    The fact of the matter is that you know very little about the other people on here. My partner's parents are among those millionaires. I don't begrudge them their wealth. In fact, I don't think that anyone on here begrudges people their success.

    But at the same time many of us believe that those with the most should take care of those with the least. And a responsibility to contribute back to the society that helped make them so wealthy.

    Perhaps instead of a accusing those of us with more progressive politics of being anti-American or anti-capitalist, you should think about why you're so uncaring and greedy.

    As Warren Buffett said: "it is class warfare and my class is winning. It shouldn't be but it is."
    I do believe that we should take care of the poorest - and I think as do many Americans which is why Americans are consistently shown to be some of the most generous people in the world to the not for profit sector.

    I don't think it's the obligation of the rich per se, but I think people should do so at their own discretion (and then there's obviously always the question of how generous should the benefits be). I note that one of the most significant acts that Bill Clinton signed into law was welfare reform that dramatically cut benefits but ultimately had the effect of drastically reducing child poverty. I think "progressives" have a reflexive inclination to directly help people versus providing the tools for people to excel (that give a man a fish versus fishing rod idea).

    Charity isn't charity if it's forced. The idea of "giving back" I think is also questionable. The rich - or at least the nouveau riche contribute greatly to society. As many have also noted, Bill Gates gave more to the world with Microsoft (as much as we may generally all curse their products from time to time) than he will end up doing in his philanthropy - because of the positive externalities of technologies / innovation.

    As for Warren Buffett - as others have pointed out, he has been tremendously self serving at times in this crisis - urging bailouts for instance, advocating interventions that have directly benefited himself. I don't necessarily blame him for this, but as an example he previously pointed out that his secretary paid more as a percentage of income than he did while leaving out the fact most of his income comes from investment gains while that of his secretary was pure income - so even if income taxes increased, it wouldn't have affected him much at all.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2010 4:35 AM GMT
    riddler78 saidHeh - I was thinking about you today. I didn't respond to a couple of your questions previously but your questions got buried by the time I saw them.

    First off, as your report points out, you're taking the data from probably the lowest inflection point. As it states earlier - "After a 27 percent decline in the number of millionaire households in 2008" - so it dropped 27%! and then "surged" 16%? By my limited math that means the US is still under water on millionaires. Also I'm going to guess that the variation in networths for those at upper end of the scale are going to be a lot less extreme than that of the rest of Americans. It is however indicative of the leanings of Huffington Post in what numbers they've chosen to note and indicate.

    I note further that Reuters reported according to Wikipedia: "After the 27 percent drop, the number of millionaires is at the lowest level since 2003, when the millionaire population stood at 6.2 million."

    Ok so that was an easy one - given you posted the answer for me - so based on these numbers I think you owe me icon_wink.gif


    I believe my bet was that the wealthy would ultimately benefit from the recession in a way the middle, working class, and poor would not. In fact, that's exactly what we're seeing.

    Leo HinderyThe overwhelming problem today for most workers isn't this recession, as horrible as it is -- it's the fact that for every earned income level except the top 10%, average household income hasn't changed a bit for 10 years, and that for the bottom 60% of wage earners it hasn't changed for more than 20 years. Through economic expansions and recessions -- and bull and bear markets -- alike, 90% of workers in America have been standing still earnings-wise.

    100 million people, fully one-third of the entire U.S. population, are at or below "200% of the federal poverty line of $21,834 for a family of four", which is a needs-measure made lame by the fact that no family of four can actually comfortably live on such a low annual income.


    [url]http://www.alternet.org/economy/145950/our_dirty_little_secret%3A_who%27s_really_poor_in_america[/url]

    So, the wealthiest Americans have seen their wealth begin to rebound in only the first few months of recovery, while the middle class and working poor haven't seen such an increase in two decades.

    Doesn't that seem wrong to you?

    As I said earlier, I'm not opposed to people being rewarded for their innovations, their success, the contributions to society, but somewhere along the way, the rising tides stopped lifting all ships.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2010 4:45 AM GMT
    riddler78 saidI do believe that we should take care of the poorest - and I think as do many Americans which is why Americans are consistently shown to be some of the most generous people in the world to the not for profit sector.

    I don't think it's the obligation of the rich per se, but I think people should do so at their own discretion (and then there's obviously always the question of how generous should the benefits be). I note that one of the most significant acts that Bill Clinton signed into law was welfare reform that dramatically cut benefits but ultimately had the effect of drastically reducing child poverty. I think "progressives" have a reflexive inclination to directly help people versus providing the tools for people to excel (that give a man a fish versus fishing rod idea).

    Charity isn't charity if it's forced. The idea of "giving back" I think is also questionable. The rich - or at least the nouveau riche contribute greatly to society. As many have also noted, Bill Gates gave more to the world with Microsoft (as much as we may generally all curse their products from time to time) than he will end up doing in his philanthropy - because of the positive externalities of technologies / innovation.

    As for Warren Buffett - as others have pointed out, he has been tremendously self serving at times in this crisis - urging bailouts for instance, advocating interventions that have directly benefited himself. I don't necessarily blame him for this, but as an example he previously pointed out that his secretary paid more as a percentage of income than he did while leaving out the fact most of his income comes from investment gains while that of his secretary was pure income - so even if income taxes increased, it wouldn't have affected him much at all.


    Actually, an argument could be made the Americans are so generous because we do not have the generous social welfare programs that other Western countries do. In fact, the lessening of the welfare state in Western Europe has led to a great increase in NGOs and philanthropy. So, it's really a chicken-egg conversation.

    I'm not talking about charity here. My argument is that people like Bill Gates owe their great wealth in some ways to the huge market made up of people who purchased his products. Without buyers, there is no market for Bill Gates to sell Microsoft products to. I think it is in the entrepreneurs best interest to have a country that ensures that people do not fall into and remain in poverty. Given the course the country is now on, how long before the markets for computers shrinks as fewer people can afford them?

    I don't have the time or energy to get into how vehemently I disagree with your interpretation of welfare reform; an act for which I will never forgive Bill Clinton. Perhaps child poverty was reduced; I haven't seen data around that, but what I do know is the many of the social program that allowed women like my mother to transition from welfare to a Kindergarten teach and then raise me and my brother to have middle class lifestyles (and taxes!) simply do not exist anymore.

    PS: I'm flattered you were thinking of me! icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2010 6:21 AM GMT
    Christian - "I believe my bet was that the wealthy would ultimately benefit from the recession in a way the middle, working class, and poor would not. In fact, that's exactly what we're seeing."

    I think if you look more closely at your quote - it points out that wages have stagnated - which isn't terribly surprising in a world with significant structural change and to a lesser degree outsourcing. That being said, it doesn't say that the rich are benefiting from this recession - it says that the rest haven't benefited in the last 20 years (wages though - standard of living has increased if you look at technology alone and how far your dollar goes).

    The wealth(ier) have more of their money in the markets so it's not surprising to see that they would bear the brunt of a downturn as your own article points out, but also the uptick as well because markets are forward looking - ie they anticipate the future. That being said, I think the playing field and access to good money management is a bit less unlevel today than ever because of the role institutional investors play - ie pension funds.

    re: innovations/successes and contributions - I think what you would find is that beneath the numbers has been a great deal turbulence given the divergence between those who have educations and those who don't. Whereas in the past people could switch jobs a lot easier given lower required skill levels, today you need far more specialization.

    The important thing though is to ensure opportunities exist. I would point out further that using the 200% of the federal poverty line for a family of four is not as great a measure given that if you track what that money buys today is rather better than in the past - e.g. in all likelihood these people have cell phones, microwaves, sometimes even big screen tv's. Measuring poverty isn't as simple as it used to be.

    As for charity/social welfare - from what I've seen at least where I've lived the social NGO sector tends to perform services far more efficiently than their government counterparts. I think that's generally a good thing. But I think it is open to debate whether or not overall the demands are being met - something that I don't think there's very good data on overall though Americans even the poorest tend to do better than most other countries in the world let alone the west.

    If you're worried about jobs - governments really can't create jobs - they can only provide the environment for innovation and firms. Economies grow based on the innovation they generate. I'm personally in favor of some level of government intervention - it's just a question of how much is optimal. What I do know is that we won't be able to improve middle class lifestyles by increasing minimum wages by fiat especially in this environment which hurts small businesses the most (creating wage floors simply means more unemployment and making it more difficult for people to get experience - especially students and the long term unemployed), or by government hiring which doesn't tend to broadly create innovations - or does so rather inefficiently (resource allocation).

    While I think this is a particularly bad time in the economy, there is a lot that is remarkable and keeps me pretty optimistic. As just purely one example, this site, look at how easy it is for people like us to connect now than ever before. But technology creates a lot of turmoil and chaos as well but with it new and even bigger opportunities. I do think it's a fantastic time to be alive.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2010 6:27 AM GMT
    What he said.

    Plus I would imagine you'd be all for increasing the number of households that fit into that description. Better there be more people earning a million or more than less, no?

    jake_bh12 said
    Christian73 saidApparently, I was right that the "Great Recession" has turned out okay for the wealthy, while working people are still screwed. I guess you owe me some money. icon_wink.gif

    It's actually a bet I wouldn't have minded losing, if it meant that American families were better off than I thought. icon_cry.gif

    Huffington PostThe number of U.S. households with a net worth of $1 million or more -- excluding wealth derived from a primary residence -- grew 16 percent last year. After a 27 percent decline in the number of millionaire households in 2008, the ranks of U.S. millionaires swelled to 7.8 million last year.

    And it was an even better year to be an "Ultra High Net Worth Individual," defined as someone with a net worth of $5 million or more. That population grew 17 percent in 2009 to 980,000.


    The number of American millionaires seems to have risen in tandem with both work productivity growth and, unfortunately, with the unemployment rate, which has hovered around 10 percent in the last few months.

    While productivity growth signals heightened efficiency, it also generally means that companies require fewer workers, so the country's rapid rise in productivity -- which surged 6.2 percent last quarter -- may be, as a recent paper put it, one of the "main drivers" of the jobless recovery.

    Of course, household incomes have been growing unevenly for years -- even during times of seeming prosperity. For 2007, the year for which the most recent data is available, the top one percent of earners -- those with incomes of at least $398,000 per year -- enjoyed a 6.8 percent growth (versus the 3.7 percent average), boosting their share of the country's total income to 23.5 percent.


    The equities markets came back.. so of course there would be a bounce back with the number of wealthy people... a lot of people lost this status in 08 with the crisis.. so when the markets bounced back these people regained that status... so of course ur numbers will looked distorted..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2010 1:39 PM GMT
    Never place a bet on an ill-defined proposition.

    edit: well... unless you expected your betting partner not to notice, and you lack a hangup about honesty (not that either of you do icon_wink.gif )
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Mar 10, 2010 3:03 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidActually it makes sense.

    In 2008 the stock market peaked and then crashed, hitting bottom in March of 2009. Anyone who had cash on hand to invest starting in March of 09 saw their investments grow by 78% on average.

    People on here who resent those who actually see their wealth increase have a very peculiar way of looking at our country and our economic system. At the heart of the resentment is a belief that wealth should be distributed more equally.

    Name it what you will, but it isn't American and it isn't capitalist.
    MI GAWD!! has SB finally posted something i can agree with? icon_eek.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2010 3:19 PM GMT
    Yawn. How is this different from your last post soliciting hatred for the people who's incomes increased during the recession?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2010 3:35 PM GMT
    JASFIT saidYawn. How is this different from your last post soliciting hatred for the people who's incomes increased during the recession?



    Um... It's a follow-up. Try to pay attention. BTW, not "soliciting hatred" but having a debate about the impact wealth inequity from a couple of different political philosophies. Sorry your own beliefs are so vapid that you can't handle them being criticized or questioned. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2010 3:37 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 saidBut at the same time many of us believe that those with the most should take care of those with the least. And a responsibility to contribute back to the society that helped make them so wealthy.


    Fine.

    But the government has no right to decide how rich is too rich and how much should be taken from the rich and given to the not so rich to "equalize" wealth distribution. That's where we differ.


    Actually, the ability to levy taxes is somewhere in the Constitution. I'm sure of it. And please let go of the BS that the government is "equalizing" wealth. Given the degree to which so-called entitlement programs have been gutted or scaled back in the last 30 years, it's a very specious argument.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2010 4:08 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidAs Warren Buffett said: "it is class warfare and my class is winning. It shouldn't be but it is."

    Ya know, I just love that guy! One of the richest on the planet, and a decent person, I really believe that. Smart, honest, no BS, just a good guy. I'm sorry I've never had the pleasure of meeting him.

    I suppose the richest guy I ever knew was the late Malcolm Forbes, another prominent investor, with whom I used to go motorcycling. Almost a bit of a nerd (and a terrible biker), but also a very nice, gentle guy, once again proving that the mega-wealthy aren't all bastards.

    Still, the transfer of wealth to the few, per Republican design, accompanied by the decrease of the US middle class and a burgeoning poor class, is not acceptable in a democracy. Such divisions destroy a democracy, since the rich can direct elections and obtain undue influence, becoming oligarchs.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2010 5:21 PM GMT
    Is there something wrong with more people becoming wealthy after the economy suffered?

    If I had several thousand in the bank I would have put in all into Ford stock. The economic downturn was a great opportunity to invest if you were smart and had enough disposable income.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2010 5:31 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Name it what you will, but it isn't American and it isn't capitalist.

    I disagree solely since the rich getting richer is purely a product of a capitalistic model, just one that is out of control, hyper productive at all costs.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2010 5:33 PM GMT
    ATC84 saidIs there something wrong with more people becoming wealthy after the economy suffered?

    Yes, the rich are the ones getting wealthier and their money doesn't "trickle" down. It circulates in a certain sector. The middle-class and flat out broke people are getting poorer and all the jobs cuts, salary cuts, price hikes affect them and not those with a higher income during the crisis.

    CEOs, CFAs, big shots aren't getting fired or taking ground-breaking salary cuts. Secretaries, janitors, teachers, grad students, middle-management, etc.. they are the ones getting hosed.

    Faculty at the U of I have taken a 3% pay cut, hiring freeze, and we have cut class numbers, increased class size, dropped TAs etc...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2010 6:09 PM GMT
    Pinny said
    ATC84 saidIs there something wrong with more people becoming wealthy after the economy suffered?

    Yes, the rich are the ones getting wealthier and their money doesn't "trickle" down. It circulates in a certain sector. The middle-class and flat out broke people are getting poorer and all the jobs cuts, salary cuts, price hikes affect them and not those with a higher income during the crisis.

    CEOs, CFAs, big shots aren't getting fired or taking ground-breaking salary cuts. Secretaries, janitors, teachers, grad students, middle-management, etc.. they are the ones getting hosed.

    Faculty at the U of I have taken a 3% pay cut, hiring freeze, and we have cut class numbers, increased class size, dropped TAs etc...


    CEO's & others are losing jobs and taking cuts. Bob Lutz is leaving GM (again...) because he doesn't feel he is getting back all he is entitled to given his experience.

    Um as to everything else... thats how the world works... unless we want the government to control every business and bleed off the top when things go bad first.

    Raising taxes makes sense I guess but raising them the point of punishment seems stupid. 99% or more of the top business leaders in this country don't work for AIG or the other hated companies. They didn't bankrupt people and companies.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2010 12:47 AM GMT
    ATC84 said
    CEO's & others are losing jobs and taking cuts. Bob Lutz is leaving GM (again...) because he doesn't feel he is getting back all he is entitled to given his experience.

    With one of history's largest severance packages.

    "How the world works" is extremely faulty and the logic of regulation by the money-holder would lead to no progress in any field. It is the same logic that would keep gays as second-class citizens forever.

    Driving a larger gap inbetween the upper-class and middle/lower-classes is should not just be over looked especially in a time of crisis.

    http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

    It is overwhelming how hard the middle and lower classes are being hit and how immune the upper and hyper-upper classes are. Your nonchalance/phlegmatic attitude towards it is disheartening .
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2010 2:17 AM GMT
    Pinny saidIt is overwhelming how hard the middle and lower classes are being hit and how immune the upper and hyper-upper classes are.


    That's what I keep saying. Sure, a lot of wealthy people lost a great deal of money (on paper) in this last recession, but to a person, they have all had the most stunningly golden parachutes. I truly think we are seeing the beginning of "moral hazard" on a global scale.

    I'm reading "Too Big To Fail" at the moment. While thus far no one appears to have tried to fuck up the economy on purpose, they did. And no one seems to have really paid a price for it.

    But, then again, Larry Summers is in the Obama administration and he shit the bed in the Clinton administration and lost billions from Harvard's endowment. So, at least the lack of punishment for failure is bipartisan. icon_rolleyes.gif