Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Probably too soon for AI. It's only been out for 2 years, not even at the dial-up internet equivalent stage yet.

 

I think the current divergence in wealth is more likely from globalization.

 

The top performers have a larger market while the bottom performers to compete against a far larger labour pool.

  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Posted
43 minutes ago, mcliu said:

Probably too soon for AI. It's only been out for 2 years, not even at the dial-up internet equivalent stage yet.

 

I think the current divergence in wealth is more likely from globalization.

 

The top performers have a larger market while the bottom performers to compete against a far larger labour pool.

Plus a stock market that never goes down and an economy that never has a recession. Recessions cull the stupid and overly risk taking rich while at the same time provide opportunities for those that are wise and frugal from below to move up. You can’t have real capitalism without recessions. 

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, thepupil said:

 

yes, this is one potential explanation....that most people are exercising their freedoms and choosing  to be poor. That would generally reflect better on the US than the other explanation which that the bottom 1/2 or whatever can't accumulate wealth due to lack of opportunity or because we need to build more houses or whatever. definitely think americans consumer-y ways are part of it (my own wealth accumulation is certainly slowed by my lavish expenditures), but not sure if it's the only reason. 

 

 


Certainly not the only reason but there are some areas to improve like teaching financial literacy in school. But that too has limitation. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the poverty level in the US 10% correlates with below average IQ <85 15%. I think as a society we have also made luxuries necessities. I’ve worked quite a few jobs in my life that caused me to brush shoulders with the lower income class. A lot smoked 1 pack a day ($8) drank a case of bud a week $18, 1-2 lotto tickets a week. Over 30 years that ~$350 a month blown on addictions could net them like 500k at market returns. That would secure a lot of retirements. 
 

The US is the land of opportunity for good and bad choices.

Edited by Castanza
Posted
15 hours ago, Red Lion said:

 

The facts are pretty tenuous for your sexist joke. Factoring in for single parent households, I suspect there's more men on these means/asset tested programs, but it's a moot point. 

 

The public benefits trap applies to men and women. There are plenty of men and women in the USA that can't fund a savings account or try to get a 20% raise because the benefits cliff is insurmountable without a very large one time increase in income (to replace subsidies). People do dig out through education (which is typically how one gets a very large one time increase in income), and there are actually pretty generous means tested subsidies for education as well. 

Out of the 35.9% of American adults who do not want a job, women make up 59.2% of that group.

 

These statistics are published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...