Wealth Inequality

[DeepState]

I think you might just find that income and asset wealth have something in common for the vast bulk of people who are not born as trust fund babies.

I disagree. I think wealth inequality is generational and designed that way through the housing policy. It is a way of bribing the older generations to vote for the continued degradation of younger generations so that rich people can have more money and power.

Is wealth related to assets? You disagree. Do you have data to justify the hand-waving? Here's some from the lead research body into inequality in the US to add to this:



The proportion of income from sources other than personal exertion has grown for the top 1%. For everyone else, it has basically not changed. In other words (or mine) 'for the vast bulk of people' there is a direct like between income and wealth. To suggest otherwise requires some high altitude acrobatics...which I look forward to viewing. A direct link does not mean specific people who cannot afford rent or even specific dual income law partners no kids families living in LA.

Before we start going on about the Top 1% being unreachable, 273 of the Forbes 400 were self made...fighting against the tide of horrid parents keeping property away from them. Of the rest, the assets were passed down..presumably by court order in each case from greedy parents with a one-eyed ambition to make them worse off than they had been and degrade them. They are they're ones with the greatest assets, so for your thesis to be even be close to the mark, it would have to be apparent here. Or maybe poorer families hate their kids more.

Do you have data? It seems the They are now rich old folk who want to degrade their kids and do so via policy changes related to property. At least we have an identity of some of the They. Except their actions don't seem to align with the prognostication. Acrobat away... Remember, we can't afford a social safety net.

 

[Julia]

Mrmagoo, I think you're right. You genuinely are poor. Your impoverishment of spirit, your self-absorbed feeding on your own bitterness makes you so.

It must be a miserable way to exist. I'd suggest you try for a sense of proportion by getting involved in some community voluntary activity with people who really are disadvantaged. But it wouldn't be fair to inflict you on them.

Meantime, hundreds of thousands of people fighting genuine disadvantage for a myriad of reasons, are able to continue to be optimistic, to make the most of what they have, and to be grateful for the support of their community.
And the community is supportive of those they see making the best contribution they can. Often when we hear about a need for a special wheelchair for a disabled child, for example, the local community will get involved in fund raising so that child gets the chair.

All around you people are contributing to others, not for any reward, just because it's how communities function best.

You incessantly whine about your situation. How about someone who is unemployed, trying to exist on the dole, unable to meet rent payments, therefore becoming homeless? For you to not see the relativity between your separate positions is a huge insult to the person with a real problem.

 

[John Swift]

Mrmagoo, I think you're right. You genuinely are poor. Your impoverishment of spirit, your self-absorbed feeding on your own bitterness makes you so.

What Julia said... and also, according to Jack Ma, if you're poor, it's your own fault...

http://vulcanpost.com/7702/jack-ma-youre-still-poor-35-deserve/

 

[Mrmagoo]

It is not your own fault for being poor.

Julia.. a lot of those people you mention are the ones being hurt by the increase in inequality being driven by housing affordability issues. Which is funny, because you don't get that. Which is a lot of my point.

Australians = like the idea of equality but hate the results of it.

Americans = don't even pretend to want equality.

That is the fundamental difference.

Over the last 10 or 15 yeas we have gone from being a fundamentally equal society in terms of opportunity to a fairly unequal one.

I don't know how you could undertake any non-bias study of equality in Australia and not consider the housing market.

We have a situation where the landed elite have developed and the next generation will consist of bonded peasantry who must pay an increasingly higher percentage of their income to the landed elite.

The landed elite, naturally support this arrangement.

 

[Mrmagoo]

You incessantly whine about your situation. How about someone who is unemployed, trying to exist on the dole, unable to meet rent payments, therefore becoming homeless? For you to not see the relativity between your separate positions is a huge insult to the person with a real problem.

What do you think causes a person who is on the dole to end up homeless ? Hint : It is the same thing I've been pointing out is a big driver on inequality.

You are a classic example of an Australian who likes the idea of equality, but wouldn't see it put in practice.

That is your right in a democratic society just like it is the right of the Americans to decide a $7 an hour wage is fair and appropriate.

 

[Mrmagoo]

Is wealth related to assets? You disagree. Do you have data to justify the hand-waving? Here's some from the lead research body into inequality in the US to add to this:

View attachment 59543

The proportion of income from sources other than personal exertion has grown for the top 1%. For everyone else, it has basically not changed. In other words (or mine) 'for the vast bulk of people' there is a direct like between income and wealth. To suggest otherwise requires some high altitude acrobatics...which I look forward to viewing. A direct link does not mean specific people who cannot afford rent or even specific dual income law partners no kids families living in LA.

Before we start going on about the Top 1% being unreachable, 273 of the Forbes 400 were self made...fighting against the tide of horrid parents keeping property away from them. Of the rest, the assets were passed down..presumably by court order in each case from greedy parents with a one-eyed ambition to make them worse off than they had been and degrade them. They are they're ones with the greatest assets, so for your thesis to be even be close to the mark, it would have to be apparent here. Or maybe poorer families hate their kids more.

Do you have data? It seems the They are now rich old folk who want to degrade their kids and do so via policy changes related to property. At least we have an identity of some of the They. Except their actions don't seem to align with the prognostication. Acrobat away... Remember, we can't afford a social safety net.

No wealth is related to assets. I was just trying to say there wold need to be some sort of adjustment for generational and house price impacts in societies such as Australia otherwise the results would mostly be meaningless.

For example a $1 million dollar family home in Sydney is owned by someone fully, and by others with a 100% mortgage 10-16% of that money was created in one year and advantages the person selling to the detriment of the buyer.

 

[tech/a]

It is not your own fault for being poor.

Yes it is ! and let me prove it to you.

ANYONE CAN BE A BUM

There are 1000s of them.
You can be a bum
I can be a bum
Everyone here on this board can be a bum.

But very few will be in the top 1% and those who are will
make a choice at sometime in life to strive hard to get there.

When I was 18---a life time ago--I sat down with my then Girlfriend who became wife (1) and worked out our Budget.
We had $5 left for US.
Right there and then I/we knew I/we had to earn far more than we
needed to not have a concern financially.
I made a choice
Now 42 Years later it was a damned great choice.

There are a few here that I KNOW have made their choice.
T/H
Sam C
PAV
Julia
Joe Blow
Retired Young
Sir O
SKC
Robusta
Can OZ

To name some obvious ones---sorry fellas to those I missed.

-----------------AND-------------

YOU!

Oh
I re sat year 11---so I'm no genius.

 

[Mrmagoo]

As I said. We are just the same as America.

 

[tech/a]

As I said. We are just the same as America.

Accept it
Embrace it
Take advantage of it.

Or go live in India
Or the Sudan
Or Mexico.

Yeh your life IS your choice.

 

[Caveman]

There are a few here that I KNOW have made their choice.
T/H
Sam C
PAV
Julia
Joe Blow
Retired Young
Sir O
SKC
Robusta
Can OZ

YOU!

Oh
I re sat year 11---so I'm no genius.

MATE! How could you forget GG!

 

[fiftyeight]

Tech/A I hope to join that list one day.

As someone who came from state housing and all that entails, there are SOME people in SOME situations who cannot make that CHOICE not to be a bum. I am not sure where I would of ended up if it was not for my mother (She broke the inter generational poverty not me)

So yes it may be YOUR fault but that does not imply you have control over it

 

[tech/a]

Tech/A I hope to join that list one day.

As someone who came from state housing and all that entails, there are SOME people in SOME situations who cannot make that CHOICE not to be a bum. I am not sure where I would of ended up if it was not for my mother (She broke the inter generational poverty not me)

So yes it may be YOUR fault but that does not imply you have control over it

GG of course how remiss

58 I think your on the list from what I've seen.
But if there wasn't a single person who was once a bum who
Became someone well above their expectations I'd agree with you.

I've been seriously close to Bankruptcy twice---I'm a slow learner.
I could have very easily settled for mediocrity.

So while you may not have control as to getting there you
Have ALL the control to get out of it!

 

[McLovin]

As I said. We are just the same as America.

When were you last in America?

 

[Mrmagoo]

Tech/A I hope to join that list one day.

As someone who came from state housing and all that entails, there are SOME people in SOME situations who cannot make that CHOICE not to be a bum. I am not sure where I would of ended up if it was not for my mother (She broke the inter generational poverty not me)

So yes it may be YOUR fault but that does not imply you have control over it

Yeah mate, you got free housing as a kid, if certain people had their way I guess there would no public housing as those guys are "just bums".

You know there are a lot of families on struggle street these days who don't get public housing, they end up sleeping in their cars. That is your "equality" in Australia. That is what I mean by declining equality in this country. Some people own many houses and get assistance to own even more while the poor just end up homeless.

If that really big change in wealth has not been taken into account how can you possibly measure equality in Australia.

 

[Smurf1976]

More people's inability to accept, that they are to some degree responsible for their own outcomes, rather than an intolerance to heat. There are also opportunities at Antarctica.

There are lots of decent opportunities, it's just that they aren't all in big cities.

There's a remote location in Tas where there's a constant problem trying to retain staff to work there. Not that they have to actually live there as such, it's a rotating roster for the on-call role, and it's only 2 hours drive from Hobart (and in a company car at that). But there's still a problem with retaining staff, despite it being reasonably well paid and as close as you'll get these days to a job for life with a "too big to fail" employer. Trouble is, everyone wants a job in a city....

 

[Smurf1976]

When were you last in America?

Was there two years ago as a tourist. We're not the same, but we do seem to be slowly heading that way in many regards. You could walk the streets of any Australian city all day and not see as many people begging as you'll see in some US cities in an hour. Get away from the touristy areas and places like San Francisco are a sad sight after dark with homeless people practically everywhere.

The changes to the dole (or whatever it's officially called these days) concern me somewhat. Whilst I'm not keen on supporting those who just can't be bothered, the idea that someone has to wait an extended period before receiving assistance is going to far in my view. As a reasonably wealthy society, we ought to assist those who genuinely need help and do so without undue delay. That is the morally right thing to do, and I'm happy to pay taxes for this purpose.

 

[Mrmagoo]

Was there two years ago as a tourist. We're not the same, but we do seem to be slowly heading that way in many regards. You could walk the streets of any Australian city all day and not see as many people begging as you'll see in some US cities in an hour. Get away from the touristy areas and places like San Francisco are a sad sight after dark with homeless people practically everywhere.

It'll happen, working people won't be able to pay rent, they'll go from houses to their cars and all the problems associated with homelessness will lead to job losses and/or the lack of a permanent address means you can't get welfare or apply for others jobs.

Or simply they'll lose their jobs and be evicted as they won't be able to accumulate savings to miss a single pay packet.

 

[Julia]

What do you think causes a person who is on the dole to end up homeless ? Hint : It is the same thing I've been pointing out is a big driver on inequality.

You are a classic example of an Australian who likes the idea of equality, but wouldn't see it put in practice.

That is your right in a democratic society just like it is the right of the Americans to decide a $7 an hour wage is fair and appropriate.

Equality does not mean giving everyone equal amounts of everything. It means offering equality of opportunity with supplementary care for people who for various good reasons are simply not able to compete.

You on more than $100K p.a., no dependants, no one other than yourself to support, do not fall into such a category.

You have got every opportunity to look for alternatives if you're not happy with your present existence.

The same cannot be said for a family trying to care for eg disabled or severely ill children, and/or demented parents, while they struggle on much less than you earn to either pay rent or a mortgage.

The suggestion has been made that you're a troll, just winding people up. That may be true. In which case we are all foolish for giving you an audience.

We're living at a time when there are real problems to be dealt with. You are not one of them. As far as I'm concerned, I'll now relegate you to the status of someone to be ignored. Thankfully there are few like you.

 

[DeepState]

No wealth is related to assets. I was just trying to say there wold need to be some sort of adjustment for generational and house price impacts in societies such as Australia otherwise the results would mostly be meaningless.

For example a $1 million dollar family home in Sydney is owned by someone fully, and by others with a 100% mortgage 10-16% of that money was created in one year and advantages the person selling to the detriment of the buyer.

Not sure I catch your drift. People with more income and more assets are richer than those with less under most definitions. Not much adjustment actually needs to be done to confirm their position on the inequality spectrum. If you are arguing that the spectrum/balance is now too tilted how should wealth and income measures be adjusted to make them more meaningful to the core purpose of the debate on inequality? If you are going to drift back into absolute poverty discussions again, please set up another post.

As to the $1m family home example, I must say that you are extremely inventive and well researched in all the ways to excuse (yourself for) underachievement. It would seem a reasonable perspective and I'm sure many would see merit in it. I do. Then I looked some more.

If you are a gazillionaire because you got off your butt and did something with your life that led to commercial success, compound interest on your assets would lead to your relative wealth expanding against the populace if the rate of growth of assets exceeds that of incomes more generally and matches the general return of asset holdings by others. Sure thing.

I am going to make an assumption that we are not talking about the kind of equality that talks about the richest man/woman since the dawn of time. If I am wrong...please walk the tightrope again whilst juggling fire. Instead, we are talking about movements around broader classifications.

Strangely, people look into this stuff with heavy effort as opposed to anecdote. One of these groups is the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Here is the key take-out from the Aug 2013 report on Household Wealth and Wealth Distribution which surveyed a sample of 14,600 households. I don't think they skewed it towards Republicans. However, I disclose that the footnotes are silent on this.

Just for kicks, here are the stats for the income/wealth relationship for Australia:



A relationship clearly exists with the lowest income decile heavily representing retirees who naturally have low incomes and are beyond the maximum wealth accumulation phase of their lives.

So, let's march on to the $1m house etc. Except let's look at stats rather than anecdote. I know it generates less emotive response, but you present this in an apparently serious way rather than deliberately fantastical. Here's the key table:



Some points to note:

+ Of the richest quintile, 92% of their total income comes from...working. Not sucking the life out of some trust fund like a hungry baby.

+ The lowest quintile has a high proportion of households classified as "owner without a mortgage" at 50%. This declines through the quintiles until, well golly gosh, the richest quintile has the lowest figure of 20%. What? Those poor rich people, who live in the family home (this group has the highest proportion of families with dependent children), and are mortgage slaves. In fact the mortgages are so distasteful that 20% choose to rent! Is that wildly below the average of 30%?

+ As you move further down the wealth figures, the household sizes shrink. Further, the number of people who work in those households shrinks as they move outside the workforce age group. Presumably they don't actually need a 5br $1m house and would be fine with a $500k 3br house that isn't quite so close to the CBD office. This somewhat narrows any mortgage burden issue that you want to rest on for a tide of woe. How strange that, as you move through your career and build a family your wealth generally increases and, when moving to retirement, your income drops and with it your wealth. Outrage!

+ As we move to the bottom quintile, 34% rent. Fifty percent own their homes outright and 12% have a residual mortgage. Government support of some kind is received by 76% of this cohort. For 76%, this makes up more than half of their income. This is a living supplement. It is not intended to be a means to afford a $1m family home in Sydney.

+ Do you think we should socialize property? Sure worked for Gadaffi. Perhaps increase the transfers some more so that full fledged government pensioners can afford to pay-down a mortgage that they may have been able to afford whilst working? Sure worked for Greece.

Next excuse please.

 

[Mrmagoo]

Equality does not mean giving everyone equal amounts of everything. It means offering equality of opportunity with supplementary care for people who for various good reasons are simply not able to compete.

You on more than $100K p.a., no dependants, no one other than yourself to support, do not fall into such a category.

You have got every opportunity to look for alternatives if you're not happy with your present existence.

The same cannot be said for a family trying to care for eg disabled or severely ill children, and/or demented parents, while they struggle on much less than you earn to either pay rent or a mortgage.

The suggestion has been made that you're a troll, just winding people up. That may be true. In which case we are all foolish for giving you an audience.

We're living at a time when there are real problems to be dealt with. You are not one of them. As far as I'm concerned, I'll now relegate you to the status of someone to be ignored. Thankfully there are few like you.

Stop with the personal attacks. You think high house prices don't affect low income earners too ?