#occupy<insertlocalehere>

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Well there are CT bus drivers and school bus drivers that haul our children everyday.

CT varies from $13.00 to $29.00 last I checked.

As far as owning a home, I believe it is a right to have safe affordable homes. No need for rental properties on a mass scale. No need for $200 000+ homes. However if you want a luxury home you can certainly pay for it.

If detached houses in Calgary cost only $200,000 or less to buy brand new then you might have bus drivers being able to buy them, but the carpenters, plumbers, electricians, and cabinetmakers probably couldn't because they'd be making $10 an hour.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by valo403

I'm pretty confused on a number of points here.

First, the house cost issue. Not sure where your numbers are coming from, I assume they're just made up for the example, but there's much more to the cost of a home than the materials used to build it. There's land costs, labor costs etc. to factor in. Why would my apartment sell for over $3mil? It has nothing to do with the materials used and everything to do with the location (Manhattan) and the particular dynamics of the market.

Yes, I understand the dynamics of location. Labour costs are more or less predictable. Isn't Manhattan one of the most expensive places to live? Most places do not have this location/land value issue. Where houses are built today in suburbs isn't the same as an extreme like your place. Also, nice to know I have a place to crash on my next trip to NY.

Originally Posted by valo403

Second, what happens to all the money when a corporation dies? Well if by dies you mean goes bankrupt it gets paid off to creditors. Where do you suggest it go?

I'm talking about the 1/4 value that dropped due to deregulation in investing that caused the crash. That 1/4 disappeared into private hands.

Originally Posted by valo403

Third, why would owners of a corporation (note, a reference to an owner of a corporation could mean a whole deal of things. Are you talking about the board? The CEO? The shareholders?) go to jail because that corporation goes bankrupt? If they did something illegal to cause the failure, then sure, make a case and send them to jail if they're found guilty. Otherwise I don't really see how you justify that.

Fair enough, I should be more specific. In the investment market over the last decade more money was placed into debt purchases and other empty investments. I posted this info earlier in this thread. I'll do some reading and gather more info in regards to your post. Now, this didn't happen out of the blue. Rules were changed by "suggestions" and bribes "lobbyists" to benefit a specific group "investment bankers" through promises of huge profits. It is here where there needs to be a true investigation. It is here where the "Corporate Bankers" and "law makers" need to answer for their behavior and greed.

Now the guy on the street who bought stock in a business and was not involved in the process above obviously didn't do anything wrong.

I'll post later today or tomorrow with more specifics. I need to finish a project today.

[MelBridgeman]

[Shasta Beast]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Apples and oranges. Today there is no cause for the youth to give for. Today the wealth disparity is greatly more in favour of the 1% than it was in 1944 and broken regulations, as a result of de-regulation since that time, continue to support that shift.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Shasta Beast

Apples and oranges. Today there is no cause for the youth to give for. Today the wealth disparity is greatly more in favour of the 1% than it was in 1944 and broken regulations, as a result of de-regulation since that time, continue to support that shift.

Nothing is stopping most people from being part of the 1% - and it's not the same in Canada.
170,000 canadians paid 28 billion in taxes in 2009
4.4 million paid less than 100 in 2009

4.4 million get free health care, welfare ect.. thanks to the 170,000

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Shasta Beast

Apples and oranges. Today there is no cause for the youth to give for. Today the wealth disparity is greatly more in favour of the 1% than it was in 1944 and broken regulations, as a result of de-regulation since that time, continue to support that shift.

If you were poor in 1944 you were a hell of a lot worse off than now.

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

If you were poor in 1944 you were a hell of a lot worse off than now.

In the Developed World, that is true. But much of the reason for being better off arises from technological advances.

[Shasta Beast]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Nothing is stopping most people from being part of the 1% - and it's not the same in Canada.
170,000 canadians paid 28 billion in taxes in 2009
4.4 million paid less than 100 in 2009

4.4 million get free health care, welfare ect.. thanks to the 170,000

Oi, no one cares about Canada. All the serious occupy wallstreet protests are in America, and all the serious regulation problems are there.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Nothing is stopping most people from being part of the 1% - and it's not the same in Canada.
170,000 canadians paid 28 billion in taxes in 2009
4.4 million paid less than 100 in 2009

4.4 million get free health care, welfare ect.. thanks to the 170,000

I think that's a bit untruthful. There's plenty stopping most people from attaining that level of wealth. I'm pretty well educated and in a profession that pays quite nicely and I'm unlikely to ever find myself in the top 1%. The top 1% is a pretty exclusive club, we're talking earning around $350,000/year. Cracking six figures isn't that hard for a lot of people, getting to $200,000 even isn't that far out of reach, but that next level isn't something that will ever be a realistic possibility for most people.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

If you were poor in 1944 you were a hell of a lot worse off than now.

Fine, but that's really not a point. If you were poor in the middle ages you were a hell of a lot worse off than you were being poor in 1944. So?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Barnet Flame

In the Developed World, that is true. But much of the reason for being better off arises from technological advances.

You mean capitalism? surely not.

In the late 40's home ownership was rare, you got at best week's vacation and for most all the threat of hunger was a real fear if you were injured or couldn't work for any reason.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by valo403

Fine, but that's really not a point. If you were poor in the middle ages you were a hell of a lot worse off than you were being poor in 1944. So?

So we live in a world of fiat currency where money is essentaially meaningless there fore the fact that the 1% have more money is meaningless.

What is meaningfull is the fact that the lives of the rich and the poor have never been closer together, we all have nice things, we all eat reasonably well, we all have a measure of security undreamed off 50 years ago.
150 years ago there was effectively no middle class, just rich and poor, the reason we live as well as we do is because of the system, not despite it.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

You mean capitalism? surely not.

In the late 40's home ownership was rare, you got at best week's vacation and for most all the threat of hunger was a real fear if you were injured or couldn't work for any reason.

While things were certainly cheaper back then, you also basically lived on one income, there's was no credit readily available, and certainly a lot less in the way of bills.

There was no cable bill, probably not much in the way of a phone bill for the average family, the power usage was probably a fraction of what you paid now.

But if you lost your job, there wasn't much in the way of social assistance, if you were hurt on the job, you probably lost your job.

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

You mean capitalism? surely not.

In the late 40's home ownership was rare, you got at best week's vacation and for most all the threat of hunger was a real fear if you were injured or couldn't work for any reason.

No, technological advances, so I could mean warfare.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

So we live in a world of fiat currency where money is essentaially meaningless there fore the fact that the 1% have more money is meaningless.

What is meaningfull is the fact that the lives of the rich and the poor have never been closer together, we all have nice things, we all eat reasonably well, we all have a measure of security undreamed off 50 years ago.
150 years ago there was effectively no middle class, just rich and poor, the reason we live as well as we do is because of the system, not despite it.

And we are moving progressively towards a return to that setting you mention of 150 years ago.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by valo403

I think that's a bit untruthful. There's plenty stopping most people from attaining that level of wealth. I'm pretty well educated and in a profession that pays quite nicely and I'm unlikely to ever find myself in the top 1%. The top 1% is a pretty exclusive club, we're talking earning around $350,000/year. Cracking six figures isn't that hard for a lot of people, getting to $200,000 even isn't that far out of reach, but that next level isn't something that will ever be a realistic possibility for most people.

Nothing is stopping you. My parents (3 kids) for example - both teachers - my mother stayed at home for 20 years. We didn't have the biggest house, the nicest cars....but off my dads teaching salary i was able to play hockey for 15 years, sister horse back riding, brother playing hockey, school europe trips, family vacations, without ever being in debt, my dad retired at 55 (10 years ago) and my parents through living within their means and saving money and investing the little money they made it - did quite well for themselves. No doubt they had some help from their parents in the form of inheritance (which wasn't that much) but they did it. They may not be in the 1% but they a nice little nest egg. That's just an example that it is possible.

Be smart with your money, live within your means and you may not be in the 1% but you will have a comfortable life.

Sorry don't mean to you preach to you.

Don't forget there are a lot of people in the 1% who came from nothing, how many times has Donald Trump been bankrupt?

I just don't believe in saying never....you don't need to be in the 1% to have a good life.


Do the rich need to be taxed more? Sure i have no problem with that....Do the some of the 99% need to freaking man/woman up and contribute more? YUP

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Shasta Beast

Apples and oranges. Today there is no cause for the youth to give for. Today the wealth disparity is greatly more in favour of the 1% than it was in 1944 and broken regulations, as a result of de-regulation since that time, continue to support that shift.

I would be interesting to compare banking regulations in the 40's to banking regulations now, because frankly you might be horrified. And there was probably a larger wealth disparity between the rich and poor frankly because there was no real safety net back then.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by valo403

And we are moving progressively towards a return to that setting you mention of 150 years ago.

I see no evidence of that what so ever, I see plenty of evidence that the fiat currancy system is collapsing, which will of course wipe out most of the 1%'s wealth, unfortunatly it will screw us as well and at the end of this we will probably have to go back to a 1950's style limited welfare state with goveremnts unable to pay for education or the like.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Barnet Flame

No, technological advances, so I could mean warfare.

I'd argue all of what we got from that is a product of capitalism as well, the AK47 and the RPG are the only things I can think of that found a wider market from the communist block.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

150 years ago there was effectively no middle class, just rich and poor, the reason we live as well as we do is because of the system, not despite it.

This is not entirely accurate, as much as it pains me to admit it.

I'm as anti-union as they come, but the reason we live as well as we do today isn't because of the system but largely because of victories won by organized labour against the system in the post-war years. Things the middle class take for granted today, like company benefits, pensions, cost-of-living salary increases, etc., came about largely because of the successes of unions in the 1940s and 50s. As many graphs posted in this thread have shown, that era saw the middle class make rapid gains in their share of overall wealth and the gap between the rich and other classes was much lower than it was either pre-Great Depression or post-Reaganomics.

The rise of the middle class didn't happen because of altruism on the part of the corporate masters. In fact, the ideal world for the 1% is a return to the robber baron era of the 1880s, rolling back the New Deal and other programs and benefits (both government and corporate) that salaried workers -- either unionized or not -- depend upon.

I hate unions in their modern form as much as anyone, but I don't deny their historic significance and the benefits today's middle class owe to them.