I think it’s different, aye. That thread asks only if it’s a bad thing. This thread is asking if there is a point at which it becomes such a bad thing that conditions change or are forcibly changed, and at what point you think that will occur.
From the article user_hostile linked to in his post that led to me starting this thread.
If it was a quantifiable number I’m sure history in many countries would be different. They could have simply stopped before the tipping point.
The tipping point, I believe is an emotional one. I think Income inequality could exist at extraordinary amounts so long as the upper class remains respectful of the lower classes needs. Their emotional need to be valued as human being being the most important to keep them from revolt. I think you could convince people to starve to death for the good of the country if need be, but when the wealthy fail to acknowledge the sacrifices being made, the poor will not continue to bear it.
Missed the fit window, but I have to ask: did you read the OP?
That article does not say that 50% are struggling.
In any case, here is the link to the AP News story directly: Census shows 1 in 2 people are poor or low-income
Perhaps you have a different definition of 50%? Or “struggling”?
I’m not even sure why you think the 50% number is relevant to the the discussion. when it’s stated as:
I think you can safely assume we are accepting that number for the purpose of the discussion not as a solid position the OP wishes to advocate exists.
You are correct that the number isn’t really relevant to the discussion; we could ask the same question regardless of what the percentage of population living with below-adequate resources was.
However, unless you can show otherwise, I do say that the conditions I describe, as backed by US Census data, do exist: we have roughly 50% of our population that are either poor or low-income.
OK, I see that you are talking about something else. You’re not talking about what most people mean when they talk about income inequality these days. You’re talking about us still struggling with the effect of the Great Recession. Most likely, what you’re seeing with that data is the peak, and things will get better going forward.
I don’t expect the US to descend into poverty, but let’s say 65% of the people end up in what is considered Poverty or Low Income. I doubt much of anything would happen. Can the OP cite some example where there was some “real ugliness” in places that went through that sort of situation? I mean, we’ve been there before and there wasn’t “real ugliness”, unless I’m misunderstanding what that means.
Not really, no. That’s a part of what I’m talking about, but it’s definitely not all of it. We know that this is a trend that goes back a few decades, at least.
Nearly half of our population is already there. Or can you refute the US Census data?
Why do you need examples? Do you think that economic conditions have never caused unrest?
Anyway, here’s a few: the French Revolution. Also the Boxer Rebellion. The Haitian Revolution.
I don’t know why you keep harping on the phrase “real ugliness”. Blood in the streets and violent revolution is certainly not the only possible consequence of such inequality, nor do I ever imply that. Are you sure you read the OP?
Yes.
None.
The have and the have nots are a function of skill and time. I’m not sure what you think should happen when kids can’t pass a 10th grade class. We have local businesses who have trouble hiring because of the lack of basic skills. They’ll eventually pack up and move.
funny you should say that. The last company I worked for (before they pulled out) was an international company who hired extensively from outside the US. Welcome to the real world of educational competitiveness.
No, half the population is not in poverty. Your own cite refutes that.
You made a claim. If you have an example that backs it up, then your claim has credibility. As it it, it doesn’t have it.
And those satisfied your 65% criterion? Hint: No, they didn’t.
It’s your phrase. I’m quoting you. ** It was in the OP.**
Emphasis added.
In California, no.
From here.
And we have to consider what your uneducated roofer with only a ladder and a hammer does when he puts a hole in the roof and gets sued, or damages a roof from not knowing anything about them (my roof has a special delicate kind of tile) or he falls off, or he gets a helper who falls off. Oh I know - it is all his fault for listening to people yammer on the Internet.
I never said they were. In fact, in the sentence you quoted, I said “nearly half is already there”. And I never said “in poverty”. I simply repeated the US Census data: 48% of the US population is living poor or low-income.
What are you claiming that I claimed?
Where did I say there was a criteria of any kind?
Yes, I used it in the OP. Why do you think it was any more significant than any other 2 words in the OP that you keep harping on it?
Exactly what do you think is under discussion here?
Don’t know what state you are in. In Florida your statement is factually inaccurate and will, in fact, land you in some fairly serious trouble if you try it. Roofing/remodeling here are both strictly regulated businesses.
Got curious, so I looked it up:
http://www.roofhelp.com/state_licensing_requirements.htm
A surprising number of states don’t require licenses.
I doubt your assertion, and in fact, at least 2 people have shown it to be inaccurate. I can state that where I live, Nevada, you absolutely must have a license.
So you’re contradicting your own previous post that:
I mean, if it doesn’t take any time or effort to acquire the “skills needed to work profitably” then how can it be tough on start up? Why would you have written that?
Anyone arguing that “capital” is a hurdle to starting basic service businesses like roofing, landscaping, snow-plowing, etc. is full of shlt and most likely has never started or run their own company. This isn’t France or something. Every American reading this can “create” a sole proprietorship by the snap of their fingers and begin putting services or consulting revenue on their Schedule C for 2011 taxes.
The only, and I mean only, barrier is your first good customer: all of the other expenses will take care of themselves.
The guy who roofed my house underbid a bunch of Mexican laborers. He had a ladder, and a hammer and beater truck to haul off the old shingles.
You consider whatever you want but my roof was done correctly (I checked) and he made a decent profit because I paid for the shingles.
Will this kid always be operating on a shoe-string budget. No. He’ll eventually have a nice company under his belt. But this is how he got his start. fortunately he didn’t have you to tell him it couldn’t be done.
Well, if operating within the law isn’t a concern, then yeah, I guess anyone can start any kind of business anywhere. :rolleyes:
Is there anyone who is willing to make the statement “Income inequality will never be too unequal”?