From the Guardian: America's super rich: six things to know They (the Replicants) were asking for it. Perhaps they think the summum purpose of life in America is to run after the numbers? What numbers, say you? This number: 77% Yeah, that seems close to the unfortunate truth. We've had enough. And November is the month in which we get a chance to turn the page on this turgid story ...
Demographics would explain a part of it. A large segment of the big cities where upward economic mobility used to exist has now been crowded out with poorer minorities, recent immigrants, which has driven rents up and wages down, and displaced members of the former middle class, and particularly so amongst the younger generation that was just entering the workforce. If you want to understand rising levels of inequality, you have to look at what's happened in the more populated cities over the last three decades. Another recent trend we've seen is that as higher paying job opportunities increasingly diminished in the wake of the recession (or was it that there were not enough of these higher paying job opportunities to go around for an increased population?), a greater number of the promising bright younger generation turned towards the professional opportunities in big cities like New York, San Francisco and Seattle, where even though job salaries are high, the available amount of living space is also very competitive and thus costs of living are outrageously high. As a result these bright young people who have moved for better job positions have completely put off having children. (It's no surprise, I will point out, that the younger generation in the workforce in San Francisco is so single or gay) Obviously that's exacerbating the demographic issue even more in some ways. And thus you also have an increasing average wealth gap between the older generation and the younger generation.
There's an irony in using the Guardian to crow about the American Super Rich when they've just been found guilty of misinformation over the Labour Party in order to protect the British elite...
Nothing anyone needs to know printed in The Guardian. They are just pissed off that they aren't the richest most influential people themselves. Sour grapes from the rich and influential. Bought their own news agency but someone else has a more popular one. Boo hoo.
Wrong. The wages coming down was due to the Great Recession. Yes, the US has imported to many migrants escaping poverty in Central and South America. But that is the fault of who? Central and South American countries with gunmen who run the countries. Solution! National Identity Cards. If you don't have one, out you go! (Or imprisonment until you say where you came from ...) The US should have seen it coming ... If you want to understand rising levels of inequality, you have to look at what's happened in the more populated cities over the last three decades. Nope, the US aint graduating enough people to meet the demand for the job-market. As I never tire of saying (until it sinks in): We are living under a mentality that is long since passed. That of the Industrial Age. We have entered into the Information Age and the jobs being generated need qualified educated people. The point being that for Really Educated People we are going to India to find them, where they are plenty who have been through a tertiary-level education that is very low cost! And with the cost of education in a "state school" at $12K a year in the US, we do not get enough people into schooling and out with a degree! It's dead simple, for anybody looking for the Real Reasons. But the country has become discombobulated by a twerp PotUS. Get rid of the jerk and move on! There is much that needs to be done to renew America ... !
And the Great Recession was due to... "greedy banks"... or so they'd have us believe... wonder how much each of those causes actually contributed to causing it? Just because you've identified a valid cause doesn't mean that's the primary cause of what you were looking at. Look, if I blame cause A and you blame cause B, isn't it possible cause A could have been a large part of the cause towards cause B ? Thus circular logic! Your blaming cause B does not negate cause A.
Never found 'them immigrants are bad' threads particularly revealing. There's always an evidence vacuum and complete reliance on half truths
I didn't see it as immigrants are bad, but that the plan and possible consequences weren't thought through, as you said. Immigration is a spur to economic growth in Australia. You get the growth, but infrastructure doesn't keep up.
You get the population increase, but the increase in building does not match the population increase. As a result, public facilities become more crowded and you mostly get the growth of higher density smaller homes. (example, population increases 100 percent but buildings only increase 35 percent) Guess who benefits when there becomes a shortage of buildings?
I just am having a hard time understanding why a majority of the United States super wealthy of men extending from white privilege just so happen to be also Ashkenazi.
But that's the reality of that thread. You get more interesting dialogue from the left (e.g. importance of in investment in public good provision; analysis into wage distribution effects etc). The purpose is clear: ensuring economic gains are shared. It becomes positive analysis, rather than the blame gaming always pushed by the extreme right.
Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet - Jeff Bezos was born on January 12, 1964, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, to a teenage mother, Jacklyn Gise Jorgensen, and his biological father, Ted Jorgensen. The Jorgensens were married less than a year, and when Bezos was 4 years old his mother re-married, to Cuban immigrant Mike Bezos. Warren Edward Buffett was born on August 30, 1930, to his mother Leila and father Howard, a stockbroker-turned-Congressman.
It's just that they are the three first named. The Kochs are mentioned too but the Ashkenazis must be other ones.
Start naming all American billionaires and then see who outnumbers who. My personal favorite Ashkenazis are the English Rothschilds of a rumored wealth of two trillion dollars.
Lord Rothschild seemed like a nice bloke when his house was in a competition on English telly. I wonder what has happened to Athen Onassis' money? Fortunes come and go don't they, unless they are the self perpetuating sort such as Microsoft.
It's just interesting when a suppose persecuted minority controls a lion share of the national or international wealth.
The Jews have always copped a raw deal. If a few of them make a huge fortune, good on them. The Jews are the biggest philanthropists in Australia, probably in other countries too.
Biggest philanthropists in Australia, links of evidence? I suppose you didn't see a latest report in how Israel ranked in global philanthropy. Except in the United States it isn't a few but instead quite many of them. I don't buy into the whole Jewish victimization thing, I've studied their religion, beliefs, culture, and mindset. As a whole they're a very aggressive people but subtle in laying out their aggression onto others and have a very false superiority complex about themselves in relation to others.