1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Chicago professor: It's tough to get by on $250K!

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Dick Whitman, Sep 24, 2010.

  1. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    I criticize no individuals when I say this, but studies prove this to be true.
     
  2. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Yeah, that one.
     
  3. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member



    Yeah, but the guy producing the sign or study are living off the government teet. They're not growing the economy.

    Their is no "multiplying effect" on that spending.

    That money is taken out of the local economy, laundered through D.C., and spent in L.A.

    And sure, a shitty lawyer or doctor don't "deserve" to be rich. But the average doctor or lawyer has invested in his/her future and does deserve to be better off economically than the average ditch digger who didn't spend his formative years studying and going to school.

    And, no, I didn't mean the PATH train. I meant the freight rail that the Port Authority was created to build.
     
  4. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    The 10 percent are getting their increase from the 90 percent due to the real-wage stagnation. And how can the 90 percent be wealthier than they were before (relatively speaking to someone from a third-world country, for instance) if their wages are stagnating?
     
  5. Birdscribe

    Birdscribe Active Member

    As opposed to giving it to corporations to send jobs overseas.
     
  6. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    The "rich" have a bigger piece of a bigger pie.

    Why do you object to that? They baked the pie. They made it bigger.

    And today's rich aren't the same people as they were in the past. They're new people. Newly rich. They're former members of the poor, and the middle class. They're immigrants who came here penniless, or their children.

    And the "poor" of today have more than the "poor" of yesterday could ever have dreamed of. Private, non-shared indoor plumbing. Heat. Meat in their diet on a regular basis. Healthcare. Not to mention the frivolities like cable TV and the like.

    The bigger issue is that today's high tax, high regulatory economy are making it harder & harder to move up economically.

    It's harder to save money.

    Every lib here will say something like, "I prefer mom & pop restaurants to big corporate chains". In the past, restauranteurs could start as a cook, a waiter, or a dishwasher. Learn the business. Save & borrow some money from friends and family and open their own place.

    http://www.amazon.com/Sirio-Story-My-Life-Cirque/dp/0471204560

    Nearly impossible now. Enjoy you meal at the Olive Garden.

    It's harder & harder to be an entrepreneur because it's harder & harder to save money. It's harder & harder to overcome the government regulations that stand in the way of entrepreneurs.

    And before blaming the "rich" or "the system" for the plight of the "poor", do a little research.

    We know what creates poverty. The lack of two parent homes, poor education, little job skills, bad financial decisions, etc.

    And yet we continue to "invest" in horrible, horrible inner city public schools and to pay off the public school teacher's unions instead of freeing those kids from their situations by giving them vouchers.
     
  7. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    Sorry, no ... they're just (in that scenario) laying claim to the total *increase* in the pie ... they're not taking a larger chunk of the original pie.

    And even if real wages stagnate, through innovation and increased productivity the purchasing power of these wages can increase. Thus, incomes can grow more disparate and everyone can actually be wealthier.
     
  8. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    YF has a point about small businesses.

    Every mom and pop I see open in the 'burbs fails.

    Every TGI Friday's or Olive Garden is doing robust business.

    I guess francisees are the new small business owners?
     
  9. dreunc1542

    dreunc1542 Active Member

    The shit about how the taxes are so high now is really tiresome. Here is the listing of marginal income tax rates from 1913-2003. Take a look at the middle of the century, that Eisenhower must have been such a socialist: http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php.
     
  10. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Nope. Most of these restaurants are owned by corporate or are owned by multi-millionaires or partnerships who bought up the rights to a restaurant for an entire region or state.

    The restaurants you see that are failing are almost always under capitalized and are usually in a less desirable location than their big chain rivals.

    Mom & pop might buy a coffee house franchise, but the ones they can afford are usually not great investments. They were set up by folks with the sole intention of selling franchises. That was the business plan.

    Mom & pop buy the franchise & go broke.

    It's very rare that mom & pop stumble upon a small biz, scoop up a franchise, and get rich.

    But mom & pop aren't buying a Panera or McDonald's franchise.
     
  11. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Instead of just quoting the top marginal tax rate, why don't you try to give us a real, actual example?

    Do you really think rich folks were just handing over the vast majority of their earnings to the federal government?

    The tax code was much, much different.

    Come back to us when you have an example of someone who paid 91% of their income in taxes.
     
  12. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    Please give an example of these overly burdensome regulations of which you speak.

    And the whole bit about how teachers unions are somehow to blame for the quality of education is more bullshit served up by people/corporations who want to privatize education.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page