The richest 1% own more than 99% of world's population

[NeverSure]

The root cause: Internet.

The middle class is being decimated by the inability of mom and pop and brick and mortar businesses to compete. Non-skilled and poorly educated labor force are screwed as jobs like cashiers, stockers and etc. are being eliminated. Even larger businesses like Walmart, Best Buy, Target and etc. are getting hammered from a brick and mortar standpoint. These companies will turn more and more to Internet sales. Cheaper, less labor, less capital costs for structures all over the country and etc.

The Internet will continue to make those few lucky ones who found their niche richer, but will continue to decimate middle class and create huge class disparity in wealth.

The absolute best thing one could do for the world's economy is to shut down e commerce. Hackers from Russia and China could potentially make it exceedingly more expensive for companies by compromising customer information, stealing credit card number and running up fraudulent purchases.

People like me are somewhat insulated as I gave a professional degree in a heavily regulated field and I also invest heavily into real estate. These are two areas Internet commerce cannot hurt. Restaurant businesses are also somewhat safe, but think about everything else being decimated by the Internet. Even brick and mortar car dealers are getting crushed. They are being forced to slag commissions for sales staff and restructure bonus programs for managers and the entire service staffs because Internet sales companies are killing them.

One can say the consumer is benefitting by better pricing, but at what cost when consumer purchasing power is being eroded and people are losing jobs. Lol, Obama in all of his wisdom pushes companies to pay $15 an hour thereby causing these companies to shut down due to their inability to compete with companies using the Anazon business model ala recent Walmart shut downs here state side.

In 20 years, the middle class will be virtually nonexistent and the job market is going to look very much different than it did in the 1990s and 2000s. The rich will get absurdly richer by business models that reduce labor and capital costs.

Not just the Internet but technology in general is replacing the need for human labor and has been doing so for quite some time. But I would argue that the current growth in income inequality is a result of political considerations whereby the elite have captured the government and taken personal advantage of tax regulations to their own personal needs and greeds. This h as s rest

Sent from my KFOT using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I am still waiting in front of my computer since the early 2000s for the new economy to build my brick and mortar home without the need of labor...

Erm. The future of brick and mortar is not good. Houses will be prefabricated in a factory and erected by minimal, and unskilled ( ie low paid ) workers. In the future, robots will be able to assemble factory produced house components.

To employ skilled bricklayers will exceed the ability of any but the very wealthy.

I watched a house being built next door recently. Other than the piles and the floor, everything else came ready made from the factory on a truck. Soon, the walls will arrive with cladding, plumbing, electric outlets and wiring pre installed.

Took under 3 weeks to build with basically 2 people. Anything requiring more people was contracted.

In the past either took more ( skilled ) people to build, or took a lot longer- probably both.

What you guys don't seem to understand is that automation has made the populace richer, not poorer. You could not afford to own a car if it was all made by hand, but machines stamp out the parts and machines move the parts and machines weld and machines paint.

You couldn't even afford to buy a hand built antique style wagon with blacksmith and wheelwright made wheels and all today due to the intensive labor. In the old days carriages and horses were pretty much owned by the wealthy. Now almost anyone in the West can afford a car. Whooda thought it?

Do you think you could afford a TV set if it was all made by hand? No, it takes less labor to make something today but we have so many more things! There are so many more people making new things!!

Go tell your great grandmother about everything you have in your kitchen. She had almost nothing due to a lack of automation.

[lostboy]

Yes, the stupid European socialists would take from the rich and give to the poor. Within 15 minutes the poor would be poor again.

In the meantime there would be no incentive for people to work, invent, start companies, create jobs... They'd know that if they succeeded it would be taken from them.

How many rich or even prosperous people are there in communist Russia as a percentage of the population? Just the elite, that's who. The rest of the people are dirt poor. That's what happens when everyone is "equal".

Neither communism nor socialism has ever worked long term. The Western nations got wealthy via capitalism and that means you have to be able to amass your capital. Or, as they say, "You never got a job from a poor man".

When people ask how is it possible that poor people continually vote against their own interest by electing Republicans and their voodoo economics to power then the crap above explains this anomaly in stark detail. Why is Trump's largest support coming from disenfranchised blue collar white males? Why are these people besotted by a billionaire who inherited wealth and has never demonstrated any concern for the body politic beyond being a revenue source through his 'deal making'. It is confounding how a large number of the 99% keep electing people whose policies created and support the 1%.

Trickle Down does not work. It has never worked. It is a manifestation of the voodoo economics of the Reagan era ideologues whose purpose was to protect wealth and privilege. You can easily spot to Trickle Down nutters by their constant reference to communism and socialism and their belief that the 'poor only have themselves to blame'.

Let me see, a right wing anti-debt nut with questionable financial credentials or the most respected and credible financial institution in the World? The choice is easy. I will put my trust in the International Monetary Fund and not some Trump voter. The 2015 publication of the Cause and Consequences of Income Equality https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1513.pdf concludes that an increase in the share of income by the wealthiest people leads to a decreased GDP.

The Reaganonomics Trickle Down concept that is still in vogue today with the more ideologically hidebound tea baggers, has resulted in regulations that favour investment over labour. Tax breaks for the wealthy who invest in financial markets - remember Romney's low tax bill http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/21/pf/taxes/romney-tax-return/ - are put in place while regulations that favour labour, like the minimum wage and employment protections are fought bitterly. The result of this? Kansas goes nearly bankrupt http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/15/us/conservative-experiment-faces-revolt-in-reliably-red-kansas.html and Brownback, the Tea Party poster boy is re-elected in 2014.

Income inequality damages growth. Yet the wealthy have convinced the poor to contribute to income inequality. The post above demonstrates how this voodoo works.

Edited January 19, 2016 by lostboy

[thaibeachlovers]

Not just the Internet but technology in general is replacing the need for human labor and has been doing so for quite some time. But I would argue that the current growth in income inequality is a result of political considerations whereby the elite have captured the government and taken personal advantage of tax regulations to their own personal needs and greeds. This h as s rest

Sent from my KFOT using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I am still waiting in front of my computer since the early 2000s for the new economy to build my brick and mortar home without the need of labor...

Erm. The future of brick and mortar is not good. Houses will be prefabricated in a factory and erected by minimal, and unskilled ( ie low paid ) workers. In the future, robots will be able to assemble factory produced house components.

To employ skilled bricklayers will exceed the ability of any but the very wealthy.

I watched a house being built next door recently. Other than the piles and the floor, everything else came ready made from the factory on a truck. Soon, the walls will arrive with cladding, plumbing, electric outlets and wiring pre installed.

Took under 3 weeks to build with basically 2 people. Anything requiring more people was contracted.

In the past either took more ( skilled ) people to build, or took a lot longer- probably both.

What you guys don't seem to understand is that automation has made the populace richer, not poorer. You could not afford to own a car if it was all made by hand, but machines stamp out the parts and machines move the parts and machines weld and machines paint.

You couldn't even afford to buy a hand built antique style wagon with blacksmith and wheelwright made wheels and all today due to the intensive labor. In the old days carriages and horses were pretty much owned by the wealthy. Now almost anyone in the West can afford a car. Whooda thought it?

Do you think you could afford a TV set if it was all made by hand? No, it takes less labor to make something today but we have so many more things! There are so many more people making new things!!

Go tell your great grandmother about everything you have in your kitchen. She had almost nothing due to a lack of automation.

You seem to think it's all about middle class western people. It's not. Try telling the slum dwellers in Nigeria that they can afford a tv because it's made by robots. Try telling the peasants in rural China that they can afford a car.

Have you flown between the UK and Thailand at night? You can see the rich people by the lights. There are more areas with few lights than with many. The ones that live where there are few lights don't own cars, they don't own tvs and they are lucky if they don't go to bed hungry.

[lostboy]

The root cause: Internet.

The middle class is being decimated by the inability of mom and pop and brick and mortar businesses to compete. Non-skilled and poorly educated labor force are screwed as jobs like cashiers, stockers and etc. are being eliminated. Even larger businesses like Walmart, Best Buy, Target and etc. are getting hammered from a brick and mortar standpoint. These companies will turn more and more to Internet sales. Cheaper, less labor, less capital costs for structures all over the country and etc.

The Internet will continue to make those few lucky ones who found their niche richer, but will continue to decimate middle class and create huge class disparity in wealth.

The absolute best thing one could do for the world's economy is to shut down e commerce. Hackers from Russia and China could potentially make it exceedingly more expensive for companies by compromising customer information, stealing credit card number and running up fraudulent purchases.

People like me are somewhat insulated as I gave a professional degree in a heavily regulated field and I also invest heavily into real estate. These are two areas Internet commerce cannot hurt. Restaurant businesses are also somewhat safe, but think about everything else being decimated by the Internet. Even brick and mortar car dealers are getting crushed. They are being forced to slag commissions for sales staff and restructure bonus programs for managers and the entire service staffs because Internet sales companies are killing them.

One can say the consumer is benefitting by better pricing, but at what cost when consumer purchasing power is being eroded and people are losing jobs. Lol, Obama in all of his wisdom pushes companies to pay $15 an hour thereby causing these companies to shut down due to their inability to compete with companies using the Anazon business model ala recent Walmart shut downs here state side.

In 20 years, the middle class will be virtually nonexistent and the job market is going to look very much different than it did in the 1990s and 2000s. The rich will get absurdly richer by business models that reduce labor and capital costs.

Income inequality has always existed. Right from the first time humans gathered in structured societies. The Age of Reason introduced the idea of Equality, but it was not until universal suffrage that socialism became a political force on the back of the economically disenfranchised of the Industrial Revolution. All this happened long before the internet.

Your dispute is about consumerism not income equality. I do not see its relevance. You are merely expressing the view of a Luddite. The coming generation will have entirely no concept of or interest in these views.

[Scott]

As the population ages, there will be lots of entry work. It takes about 3 or 4 people, all who are as thick as bricks, to help me keep my computer running. They can barely walk and chew gum, but they are way, way ahead of me on the technology front!

[mopar71]

[thaibeachlovers]

The root cause: Internet.

The middle class is being decimated by the inability of mom and pop and brick and mortar businesses to compete. Non-skilled and poorly educated labor force are screwed as jobs like cashiers, stockers and etc. are being eliminated. Even larger businesses like Walmart, Best Buy, Target and etc. are getting hammered from a brick and mortar standpoint. These companies will turn more and more to Internet sales. Cheaper, less labor, less capital costs for structures all over the country and etc.

The Internet will continue to make those few lucky ones who found their niche richer, but will continue to decimate middle class and create huge class disparity in wealth.

The absolute best thing one could do for the world's economy is to shut down e commerce. Hackers from Russia and China could potentially make it exceedingly more expensive for companies by compromising customer information, stealing credit card number and running up fraudulent purchases.

People like me are somewhat insulated as I gave a professional degree in a heavily regulated field and I also invest heavily into real estate. These are two areas Internet commerce cannot hurt. Restaurant businesses are also somewhat safe, but think about everything else being decimated by the Internet. Even brick and mortar car dealers are getting crushed. They are being forced to slag commissions for sales staff and restructure bonus programs for managers and the entire service staffs because Internet sales companies are killing them.

One can say the consumer is benefitting by better pricing, but at what cost when consumer purchasing power is being eroded and people are losing jobs. Lol, Obama in all of his wisdom pushes companies to pay $15 an hour thereby causing these companies to shut down due to their inability to compete with companies using the Anazon business model ala recent Walmart shut downs here state side.

In 20 years, the middle class will be virtually nonexistent and the job market is going to look very much different than it did in the 1990s and 2000s. The rich will get absurdly richer by business models that reduce labor and capital costs.

Income inequality has always existed. Right from the first time humans gathered in structured societies. The Age of Reason introduced the idea of Equality, but it was not until universal suffrage that socialism became a political force on the back of the economically disenfranchised of the Industrial Revolution. All this happened long before the internet.

Your dispute is about consumerism not income equality. I do not see its relevance. You are merely expressing the view of a Luddite. The coming generation will have entirely no concept of or interest in these views.

The coming generation will have entirely no concept of or interest in these views.

I agree, because most will not have enough money to be consumers, and will be more concerned about the next meal that a big tv. Rents in my country are becoming so expensive and houses are already unaffordable to any but the already rich that anyone with a job will spend most of their income on somewhere to live. People are living in cars. REAL trouble lies ahead as the dispossessed take issue with the rich.

[mopar71]

Do 1% have own too much? I don't care. I've never worried about how much more others have. It's more important that I feel that I have enough.

Would it be a bad world if one person had 90% of the world's wealth yet everyone else had a good job, could provide for themselves & family, afford a good home, healthcare, education, the most modern tech toys, etc? In that sense, the poor today are much better off than the poor of the past.

[thaibeachlovers]

Do 1% have own too much? I don't care. I've never worried about how much more others have. It's more important that I feel that I have enough.

Would it be a bad world if one person had 90% of the world's wealth yet everyone else had a good job, could provide for themselves & family, afford a good home, healthcare, education, the most modern tech toys, etc? In that sense, the poor today are much better off than the poor of the past.

I doubt if a Dhaka slum dweller would consider himself "better off".

[F430murci]

The root cause: Internet.

The middle class is being decimated by the inability of mom and pop and brick and mortar businesses to compete. Non-skilled and poorly educated labor force are screwed as jobs like cashiers, stockers and etc. are being eliminated. Even larger businesses like Walmart, Best Buy, Target and etc. are getting hammered from a brick and mortar standpoint. These companies will turn more and more to Internet sales. Cheaper, less labor, less capital costs for structures all over the country and etc.

The Internet will continue to make those few lucky ones who found their niche richer, but will continue to decimate middle class and create huge class disparity in wealth.

The absolute best thing one could do for the world's economy is to shut down e commerce. Hackers from Russia and China could potentially make it exceedingly more expensive for companies by compromising customer information, stealing credit card number and running up fraudulent purchases.

People like me are somewhat insulated as I gave a professional degree in a heavily regulated field and I also invest heavily into real estate. These are two areas Internet commerce cannot hurt. Restaurant businesses are also somewhat safe, but think about everything else being decimated by the Internet. Even brick and mortar car dealers are getting crushed. They are being forced to slag commissions for sales staff and restructure bonus programs for managers and the entire service staffs because Internet sales companies are killing them.

One can say the consumer is benefitting by better pricing, but at what cost when consumer purchasing power is being eroded and people are losing jobs. Lol, Obama in all of his wisdom pushes companies to pay $15 an hour thereby causing these companies to shut down due to their inability to compete with companies using the Anazon business model ala recent Walmart shut downs here state side.

In 20 years, the middle class will be virtually nonexistent and the job market is going to look very much different than it did in the 1990s and 2000s. The rich will get absurdly richer by business models that reduce labor and capital costs.

If what you say is correct, never mind 20 years as it will all fall down before then if it keeps on the way it is. No company will make a profit on e commerce as there will not be any buyers.

BTW don't need workers in a restaurant as all food will come ready made from factory, heated and delivered by robot. Those sushi places already deliver food on a conveyer belt.

I agree that the internet ( or rather computerisation of everything ) is to blame, but that's something that can't be changed now. Do you want to go back to 1960? I do, but it's not going to happen.

Unfortunately, the answer isn't a good one, but if the 1% think they can hide in their towers, surrounded by militarised guards forever, they are mistaken, and they won't have a happy ending- just think French Revolution, Bolshevik revolution etc.

Lol, we do Hello Fresh food service 3 days a week and are about to go to 5 or 6 meals a week with it or by adding another meal delivery service.

Incredibly good meals delivered to your home that cost $69 for 3 meals including delivery that are large enough for my wife and I and our 4 year old. We cannot eat at MickyDilidoes or get groceries for $23 for all 3 of us much less eat out at a decent restaurant and get former healthy meals for $23 for 3.

The meals absolutely rock if anyone is interested and living in the US. Great steaks, seafood and chicken dishes each week with fresh organic vegetables and great sauces that are made from scratch. They send perfectly portioned fresh herds, stock (beef, chicken or vegetable stocks), all fresh ingredients and easy to follow recipes. Most meals take 39 minutes to prepare.

. . . so even the food industry has some competition on the horizon. Hello Fresh meals absolutely rock and save us a lot of money.

Edited January 19, 2016 by F430murci

[mgjackson69]

Take from the rich, give to the poor...until we are all poor

[DrTuner]

Cut the population size.

[wprime]

Its always been the same the Rich get richer and the Poor get poorer,

off the backs of the of the workers,to 1% too much is never enough.

regards Worgeordie

It isn't and never has been like that. The rich get richer yes, the poor also get richer, at a slower rate.

Compare average living standards of the poor for any large interval of time, in almost all cases their living standards went up.

In fact, the living standards of the poor correlate directly with the wealth gap, that being, the bigger the wealth gap between rich and poor, the better off the poor are. This is because the richer the rich are, the more infrastructure they invest in which benefits the poor.

For example, if a rich person has $1 bln to invest in food production, food supply goes up, cost therefore goes down and the poor are better off. If this $1 bln is divided evenly among a large group of poor people, they all have more money to spend on food increasing demand which increases the cost of food proportionally so they are no better off than before.

The income gap will only make the poor, "poorer" if the wealthy consume goods necessary for survival. A person a million times as rich doesn't consume a million times as much food so it doesn't actually make the poor poorer.

[mgjackson69]

The 1% is a nickname for the super rich and not to be taken literally.

The paper today ( that's something that will disappear soon, replaced by a tablet- why pay people to make newsprint, print and deliver paper when it can be done cheaper electronically? There's another umpteen thousand jobs gone ) said that 64 people have as much wealth as 3.5 billion poorest people. Believe it or not, up to you, but even if that is incorrect, it is obvious that a few people are too rich, and a lot of people are too poor, and it can't go on indefinitely.

What is "too rich"? Is that anyone who has more money than you or me?

Without a doubt, there is income disparity in the world.

So how to fix it? Let some government agency decide who gets what?

[elgordo38]

But the media teaches me to hate the poor!!!! If poor, they are lazy!!!

The rich changes the rules, hide for a few years, complicate issues..... all until everyone is confused and doesn't care.

gotta go...I'm in charge of the coal furnace and my boss said if i take more than a 2-minute break i'm fired!!!!

so, ruling by fear works??

ruling by debt works??

get a college degree, buy an over-priced house, and then become a slave for decades...

break the chains!!!!

oh wait, you are in BKK and dating the girl from soi 99 who works at Cowboy...

carry on

By 2020 7 million more human jobs will be replaced by robots. Fresh from Channel Asia just now. Frankly I think that is on the very low side. They are calling on business to retrain workers. Big business caring about their workers? What a joke. Ha ha ha ha ha. Glad I am retired. Will robots help pay my pension?

[i claudius]

I am not rich ,nor poor but I am very happy works for me,,

[elgordo38]

Its always been the same the Rich get richer and the Poor get poorer,

off the backs of the of the workers,to 1% too much is never enough.

regards Worgeordie

Yes to much is never enough. I had to laugh at the Chinese market. Pinocchio Xi stated 7% growth economists said 6.9% and guess what the Oracle of China was bang right on and slightly over and the stock market went into a frenzy of buying. And the party goes on. Most smart economist said 4-5% more plausible. They want to become a consumer economy by 2020 and just now the TV stated that 7 million jobs would disappear (I think this figure is really low ball) by 2020 due to robots. China already is robotizing a lot of jobs so by 2020 robots will work for nothing and the average Chinese wage will make between 8-9000 dollars but thats only IF they have a job. Makes sense to me.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed. There are numerous threads about Clinton, Sanders and Trump. US politics isn't a part of this thread.

[F430murci]

The root cause: Internet.

The middle class is being decimated by the inability of mom and pop and brick and mortar businesses to compete. Non-skilled and poorly educated labor force are screwed as jobs like cashiers, stockers and etc. are being eliminated. Even larger businesses like Walmart, Best Buy, Target and etc. are getting hammered from a brick and mortar standpoint. These companies will turn more and more to Internet sales. Cheaper, less labor, less capital costs for structures all over the country and etc.

The Internet will continue to make those few lucky ones who found their niche richer, but will continue to decimate middle class and create huge class disparity in wealth.

The absolute best thing one could do for the world's economy is to shut down e commerce. Hackers from Russia and China could potentially make it exceedingly more expensive for companies by compromising customer information, stealing credit card number and running up fraudulent purchases.

People like me are somewhat insulated as I gave a professional degree in a heavily regulated field and I also invest heavily into real estate. These are two areas Internet commerce cannot hurt. Restaurant businesses are also somewhat safe, but think about everything else being decimated by the Internet. Even brick and mortar car dealers are getting crushed. They are being forced to slag commissions for sales staff and restructure bonus programs for managers and the entire service staffs because Internet sales companies are killing them.

One can say the consumer is benefitting by better pricing, but at what cost when consumer purchasing power is being eroded and people are losing jobs. Lol, Obama in all of his wisdom pushes companies to pay $15 an hour thereby causing these companies to shut down due to their inability to compete with companies using the Anazon business model ala recent Walmart shut downs here state side.

In 20 years, the middle class will be virtually nonexistent and the job market is going to look very much different than it did in the 1990s and 2000s. The rich will get absurdly richer by business models that reduce labor and capital costs.

Income inequality has always existed. Right from the first time humans gathered in structured societies. The Age of Reason introduced the idea of Equality, but it was not until universal suffrage that socialism became a political force on the back of the economically disenfranchised of the Industrial Revolution. All this happened long before the internet.

Your dispute is about consumerism not income equality. I do not see its relevance. You are merely expressing the view of a Luddite. The coming generation will have entirely no concept of or interest in these views.

Lol, you should focus more on articulating your message and less on trying to use impressive vernacular.

I don't care about income inequality and am not "disputing consumerism." I am simply addressing what I perceive to be a huge economical problem moving forward.

The population is steadily increasing, but advances in technology and the Internet is actually decreasing the number of jobs and business opportunities for the masses at an alarming rate.

I am set. I am hedged against it. Doctors, lawyers and, as someone pointed out in a rather colorful response to my post, construction, real estate and real estate development is immune.

The work force is saturated with unskilled, poorly educated individuals that will have extremely limited options in the very near future. I suppose we could put them to work building ghost cities and to "enhance" GDP, but we are seeing how well that worked for China.

RE: $15 an hour minimum wage in Washington noted by earlier response

Without a doubt, there are certain areas or cities where the economy and the job market could feasibly support a $15 an hour minimum wage. Many, however, cannot. Brick and mortar companies are now running tighter and tighter profit margins in many industries in an effirt to remain competitive with extremely efficient e commerce companies. I do not think smaller mom and pop or brick and mortar based companies already operating on razor thin profit margins can keep their doors open for long with a mandatory $15 an hour minimum wage.

Candidly, most individuals making minimum wage are not providing services worth anywhere near $15 an hour. I doubt the profit margins in Egg Mcmuffincups and Big Macs are sufficient to cover $15 an hour for those valued highly skilled talents needed to drop the fries, operate the slurpee lever and assemble a hamburger.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed. There are numerous threads about Clinton, Sanders and Trump. US politics isn't a part of this thread.

[Johpa]

Income inequality damages growth. Yet the wealthy have convinced the poor to contribute to income inequality. The post above demonstrates how this voodoo works.

Income inequality damages far more than growth, it damages the entire society. For further elaboration read "The Spirit Level" by Wilkinson & Pickett. How the wealthy hoodwink the masses is explored by Franks in his book "What's the Matter with Kansas?"

[Rob13]

POPULAR

But the media teaches me to hate the poor!!!!

Try watching something other than Fox.

Edited January 19, 2016 by Rob13

[LburtonL]

15$/hr minimal wage will kill small businesses....

The Rothschild, Rockefeller, Du Pont & Morgan those families are on top of the pyramid and control EVERYTHING

[Berkshire]

Yes, the stupid European socialists would take from the rich and give to the poor. Within 15 minutes the poor would be poor again.

In the meantime there would be no incentive for people to work, invent, start companies, create jobs... They'd know that if they succeeded it would be taken from them.

How many rich or even prosperous people are there in communist Russia as a percentage of the population? Just the elite, that's who. The rest of the people are dirt poor. That's what happens when everyone is "equal".

Neither communism nor socialism has ever worked long term. The Western nations got wealthy via capitalism and that means you have to be able to amass your capital. Or, as they say, "You never got a job from a poor man".

While I agree that communism/socialism doesn't work--people simply haven't evolved to the point where these systems could work--capitalism is also inherently flawed. In fact, the inevitable result of a prolonged capitalist system is exactly what we're beginning to see today, a tiny number of these super-rich owning most of the means of production while everyone else scrapes by. I've always found it fascinating that in the US, the conservative middle class are more than willing to support policies that are against their own self-interest, which is to protect the rich and super rich in the hopes that they themselves can become one. Fat chance.

Marx actually predicted what would happen...."States, Marx believed, were run on behalf of the ruling class and in their interest while representing it as the common interest of all; and he predicted that, like previous socioeconomic systems, capitalism produced internal tensions which would lead to its self-destruction and replacement by a new system: socialism."

Now I'm not saying that socialism is the answer, but capitalism cannot be allowed to run unfettered. The US financial industry is a good example.

[northernphil]

The storers of treasure on earth, read Matt 6:19 again and again.

And at the moment of your last breath, recall this verse.

Not forgetting James 5 v 5.

[Johpa]

Candidly, most individuals making minimum wage are not providing services worth anywhere near $15 an hour. I doubt the profit margins in Egg Mcmuffincups and Big Macs are sufficient to cover $15 an hour for those valued highly skilled talents needed to drop the fries, operate the slurpee lever and assemble a hamburger.

Candidly, I don't think that Facebook provides the services to society that justifies the wealth of Zuckerberg. And rest assured that the profit margins in the fast food industry can easily handle $15/ hour although perhaps it may require the franchise owner to actually be working and it may generate slightly lower profits for the corporate office, but it will still generate tidy profits well above the current savings account rates available to the masses. And by any metric $15/hour still puts one in the poor house. Arguing against a measly wage of $15 is simply being mean-spirited.

[Gulfsailor]

Yes, the stupid European socialists would take from the rich and give to the poor. Within 15 minutes the poor would be poor again.

In the meantime there would be no incentive for people to work, invent, start companies, create jobs... They'd know that if they succeeded it would be taken from them.

How many rich or even prosperous people are there in communist Russia as a percentage of the population? Just the elite, that's who. The rest of the people are dirt poor. That's what happens when everyone is "equal".

Neither communism nor socialism has ever worked long term. The Western nations got wealthy via capitalism and that means you have to be able to amass your capital. Or, as they say, "You never got a job from a poor man".

While I agree that communism/socialism doesn't work--people simply haven't evolved to the point where these systems could work--capitalism is also inherently flawed. In fact, the inevitable result of a prolonged capitalist system is exactly what we're beginning to see today, a tiny number of these super-rich owning most of the means of production while everyone else scrapes by. I've always found it fascinating that in the US, the conservative middle class are more than willing to support policies that are against their own self-interest, which is to protect the rich and super rich in the hopes that they themselves can become one. Fat chance.

Marx actually predicted what would happen...."States, Marx believed, were run on behalf of the ruling class and in their interest while representing it as the common interest of all; and he predicted that, like previous socioeconomic systems, capitalism produced internal tensions which would lead to its self-destruction and replacement by a new system: socialism."

Now I'm not saying that socialism is the answer, but capitalism cannot be allowed to run unfettered. The US financial industry is a good example.

Capitalism will naturally evolve into a form of socialism. The rich get richer only if the masses have enough money to consume. So when the majority of jobs are automated the rich will have no choice but to start handing out free money to the poor and jobless (via taxes), so they can keep buying the stuff that the rich make. In the end a balance will be found, where a small rich group owns most manufacturing and pays all the tax, another small group has a job and the majority is jobless but with enough free money to keep consuming. The first countries / regions are already starting to experiment with a base salary for everyone.

[lostboy]

The root cause: Internet.

The middle class is being decimated by the inability of mom and pop and brick and mortar businesses to compete. Non-skilled and poorly educated labor force are screwed as jobs like cashiers, stockers and etc. are being eliminated. Even larger businesses like Walmart, Best Buy, Target and etc. are getting hammered from a brick and mortar standpoint. These companies will turn more and more to Internet sales. Cheaper, less labor, less capital costs for structures all over the country and etc.

The Internet will continue to make those few lucky ones who found their niche richer, but will continue to decimate middle class and create huge class disparity in wealth.

The absolute best thing one could do for the world's economy is to shut down e commerce. Hackers from Russia and China could potentially make it exceedingly more expensive for companies by compromising customer information, stealing credit card number and running up fraudulent purchases.

People like me are somewhat insulated as I gave a professional degree in a heavily regulated field and I also invest heavily into real estate. These are two areas Internet commerce cannot hurt. Restaurant businesses are also somewhat safe, but think about everything else being decimated by the Internet. Even brick and mortar car dealers are getting crushed. They are being forced to slag commissions for sales staff and restructure bonus programs for managers and the entire service staffs because Internet sales companies are killing them.

One can say the consumer is benefitting by better pricing, but at what cost when consumer purchasing power is being eroded and people are losing jobs. Lol, Obama in all of his wisdom pushes companies to pay $15 an hour thereby causing these companies to shut down due to their inability to compete with companies using the Anazon business model ala recent Walmart shut downs here state side.

In 20 years, the middle class will be virtually nonexistent and the job market is going to look very much different than it did in the 1990s and 2000s. The rich will get absurdly richer by business models that reduce labor and capital costs.

Income inequality has always existed. Right from the first time humans gathered in structured societies. The Age of Reason introduced the idea of Equality, but it was not until universal suffrage that socialism became a political force on the back of the economically disenfranchised of the Industrial Revolution. All this happened long before the internet.

Your dispute is about consumerism not income equality. I do not see its relevance. You are merely expressing the view of a Luddite. The coming generation will have entirely no concept of or interest in these views.

Lol, you should focus more on articulating your message and less on trying to use impressive vernacular.

I don't care about income inequality and am not "disputing consumerism." I am simply addressing what I perceive to be a huge economical problem moving forward.

The population is steadily increasing, but advances in technology and the Internet is actually decreasing the number of jobs and business opportunities for the masses at an alarming rate.

I am set. I am hedged against it. Doctors, lawyers and, as someone pointed out in a rather colorful response to my post, construction, real estate and real estate development is immune.

The work force is saturated with unskilled, poorly educated individuals that will have extremely limited options in the very near future. I suppose we could put them to work building ghost cities and to "enhance" GDP, but we are seeing how well that worked for China.

RE: $15 an hour minimum wage in Washington noted by earlier response

Without a doubt, there are certain areas or cities where the economy and the job market could feasibly support a $15 an hour minimum wage. Many, however, cannot. Brick and mortar companies are now running tighter and tighter profit margins in many industries in an effirt to remain competitive with extremely efficient e commerce companies. I do not think smaller mom and pop or brick and mortar based companies already operating on razor thin profit margins can keep their doors open for long with a mandatory $15 an hour minimum wage.

Candidly, most individuals making minimum wage are not providing services worth anywhere near $15 an hour. I doubt the profit margins in Egg Mcmuffincups and Big Macs are sufficient to cover $15 an hour for those valued highly skilled talents needed to drop the fries, operate the slurpee lever and assemble a hamburger.

Under no accepted or acceptable definition can my text be classified as vernacular. It is, in fact, entirely opposite. That's what happens when you try to use words to impress. As the closing Chorus in Sophocles' Antigone says "Great words of prideful men are ever punished with great blows, and, in old age, teach the chastened to be wise." http://classics.mit.edu/Sophocles/antigone.html

I make my living from words. I know how to use them.

I have a study by Mckinsey that says in 13 countries they studied, the internet accounts for 3 - 4% of GDP. The internet has significantly contributed to growth. Companies in more traditional industries capture 75% of the benefits of the internet. You can read and download the full report here http://www.mckinsey.com/features/sizing_the_internet_economy. This is just one of many studies that makes a mockery of your nonsense. I have data to support my 'message' as you call it. What do you have? A gut feeling? Intuition? Evidence from your weekly shopping expedition?

Like I said, you merely take the view of a Luddite and find facts to fit your conclusion. You have committed a logical fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy. Perhaps you might consider keeping your unsolicited and unwelcome advice on individual expression to yourself.

Edited January 19, 2016 by lostboy

[Yann55]

Yes, the stupid European socialists would take from the rich and give to the poor. Within 15 minutes the poor would be poor again.

In the meantime there would be no incentive for people to work, invent, start companies, create jobs... They'd know that if they succeeded it would be taken from them.

How many rich or even prosperous people are there in communist Russia as a percentage of the population? Just the elite, that's who. The rest of the people are dirt poor. That's what happens when everyone is "equal".

Neither communism nor socialism has ever worked long term. The Western nations got wealthy via capitalism and that means you have to be able to amass your capital. Or, as they say, "You never got a job from a poor man".

Hard to know where to begin correcting your thinking here. European Socialists do not intend to take from the rich to make poor people rich but to provide them with healthcare and educational opportunity. I always imagined that the chance at the first million would suffice for incentive and that having little chance at the billion level would not seriously impact motivation to innovate. Russia was communistic back in the day and not socialistic. Nobody is advocating a return to the failed concepts of communism although some are arguing against the equally failed American cowboy capitalism. European style socialism, democratic socialism, seems to be working quite fine in regions such as Scandinavia where they have some of the best results from their healthcare systems and from their educational systems compared to other countries, especially the US which always seems to be ranked rather low on such matters. And there are many entry level jobs created by people of limited means. Compare that to the number of jobs created by the wealthiest American family, the Waltons, whose only hires are their accountants. Again, it is not wealth that creates jobs and grows an economy. These happen only when there is an aggregate increase in demand for goods and services and sometimes that happens when you have high progressive taxation on high income such as during the era of that radical socialist Dwight Eisenhower when taxes were as high as 90% on high incomes.

Your post makes a lot of sense Johpa, but you are talking to a person who is not thinking rationally, in other words you're trying to teach latin to a donkey. A donkey is not stupid, it just doesn't have the kind of brain required to learn latin.

The opposite of socialism is not capitalism, it's selfishness. The fact that the 1% who own 99% of the world's wealth use fiscal 'paradises' in order not to pay taxes on their über-massive possessions just prove how far selfishness can go in a human being. It's not like they're trying to protect their well-being or the well-being of their descendants, it's the sign of a pathology that goes way beyond obscene.

[mgjackson69]

Yes, the stupid European socialists would take from the rich and give to the poor. Within 15 minutes the poor would be poor again.

In the meantime there would be no incentive for people to work, invent, start companies, create jobs... They'd know that if they succeeded it would be taken from them.

How many rich or even prosperous people are there in communist Russia as a percentage of the population? Just the elite, that's who. The rest of the people are dirt poor. That's what happens when everyone is "equal".

Neither communism nor socialism has ever worked long term. The Western nations got wealthy via capitalism and that means you have to be able to amass your capital. Or, as they say, "You never got a job from a poor man".

Hard to know where to begin correcting your thinking here. European Socialists do not intend to take from the rich to make poor people rich but to provide them with healthcare and educational opportunity. I always imagined that the chance at the first million would suffice for incentive and that having little chance at the billion level would not seriously impact motivation to innovate. Russia was communistic back in the day and not socialistic. Nobody is advocating a return to the failed concepts of communism although some are arguing against the equally failed American cowboy capitalism. European style socialism, democratic socialism, seems to be working quite fine in regions such as Scandinavia where they have some of the best results from their healthcare systems and from their educational systems compared to other countries, especially the US which always seems to be ranked rather low on such matters. And there are many entry level jobs created by people of limited means. Compare that to the number of jobs created by the wealthiest American family, the Waltons, whose only hires are their accountants. Again, it is not wealth that creates jobs and grows an economy. These happen only when there is an aggregate increase in demand for goods and services and sometimes that happens when you have high progressive taxation on high income such as during the era of that radical socialist Dwight Eisenhower when taxes were as high as 90% on high incomes.

Your post makes a lot of sense Johpa, but you are talking to a person who is not thinking rationally, in other words you're trying to teach latin to a donkey. A donkey is not stupid, it just doesn't have the kind of brain required to learn latin.

The opposite of socialism is not capitalism, it's selfishness. The fact that the 1% who own 99% of the world's wealth use fiscal 'paradises' in order not to pay taxes on their über-massive possessions just prove how far selfishness can go in a human being. It's not like they're trying to protect their well-being or the well-being of their descendants, it's the sign of a pathology that goes way beyond obscene.

The opposite of capitalism is laziness.

People who do not want to work expecting "the government" to provide everything.