University of California professor Emmanuel Saez reports (page 3 of Striking It Richer) that "Top 1 percent incomes grew by 58% from 1993 to 2010 (implying a 2.7% annual growth rate). This implies that top 1 percent incomes captured slightly more than half of the overall economic growth of real incomes per family over the period 1993-2010." During the same 17 year period the lower 99% of households had 6.4% total growth. Trickles to the lower 99%, enormous floods enriched the already rich.
2. How the hell is free market stopping u from coming out of the gutter! it does the opposite! Why is it so important to become not all you can be, but BEING "a billionaire"? What is the matter with you! "If I haven't become billionaire, that means the free market doesn't work"? No, you haven't become a billionaire because you are not a billionaire, because YOU don't work, & most likely you will never become one. or you'd be one by now. No amount of free education would make you one.
2. Go to the stock market and see what people are investing. Who are they? The poor person with$5 to gamble? Or the wealthy with pocket change to spare? Overwhelmingly, one must have money to make money. There are a few exceptions which unfortunately keep antiquated, mythological, and ultimately oppressive views and policies alive and well.
"income don't supposed to equal with other incomes" not a good start to a statement that contradicts a central premise from the U.S. Constitution that "all men are created equal"
4. & what is success? becoming a billionaire? What if u can only be a millionaire, or only have a house & a car? is that not a success? it MUST be a billionaire, WHY? why is having as much money as the very guy on top so important? here can only be one god & u r not Him. The guy on top can only be one & you are not him because you are ANOTHER person. There's plurality of persons. No, there is not just one. No, in reality we are not "one". We r many. Is plurality running shiver down your spine?
1. "the poor herself refused to improve her own life" argument assumes more than a lot and betrays your own prejudice. I know many who are rich and many who are poor. Don't know many poor who are trying to stay that way. You're drawing on a myth of the lazy poor. If you hang around private country clubs, go try your own experiment. take a poll and see how many members there made their own fortunes versus how many inherited wealth. Then go see who works longer, harder hours.
3. We have free libraries why aren't you educating yourself & becoming a billionaire. Of course it IS laughable that taxpayers should finance your education without knowing weather or not you are a good investment of their money. Private property is not a fetish but a byproduct of the cost individual actors incur. The costs are individual & unequal, & the property belongs to whoever paid for it. and not as your dogma holds: to whoever not paid for it.
1. your whole comment is a logical fallacy from the beginning to the end. If I refuse to do anything to improve quality of life for the poor? The poor herself refused to improve her own life, why should, I, care about her own life more than she cares about it herself? If the poor is not willing to incur the cost of life & improve it, then REALITY will have no respect for her. The free market system doesn't need ur respect because it is based on reality.
