Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Income Equality Screws Over Millennials. Here's Why..." video.

  1. There are jobs available, people lack skills. When you go in debt to get a liberal arts degree that is your fault. Also, wealth and income are not the same. Anyone who brings up wealth inequality to complain about income inequality are economic illiterates.
    3
  2. samiamrg7, STEM degrees are no more expensive than liberal arts degrees. As for experience, you can do undergrad research, internship, or even work a job in general. As for your friend, with an EE degree they will get a high paying job and be fine. Engineers are some of the highest paid individuals in the market.
    2
  3. Ernesto, true. If you go into a non-STEM field they should immediately think about grad school and working in academics or becoming a teacher. We need educators. However, more people need to pursue the STEM fields. To me if you can do math do physics and engineering (more engineering, and I am a physics major saying this). If you can't do math do biology. Lots of opportunity in bio and engineering.
    2
  4. Most of the tax cuts went to the rich because they pay the vast majority of taxes. You can't cut from zero which is what a lot of the lower class pay.
    1
  5. Stefan, when you use the PCE or GDP deflator level of inflation wages are going up. Now there is a lot to it but you have to consider these many factors. 1. Technology is way better than it was 20 years ago, that lowers prices 2. Work participation is around a 30 year low, but people are still surviving. I say "surviving" because the left wants a "living wage", so with that low of standard I can lower mine as well People are doing better. Just because Jeff Bezos is rich does not bother me. He made my life easier so I can buy useless shit sitting on my ass.
    1
  6. Stefan, GDP is valuable. It shows the overall wealth of an economy. ". We need to look at median income (adjusted for inlation) which has moved very little in the past few decades." As I said, it depends on what inflation method you use. The PCE and GDP deflator shows that wages and income have been rising. Also, in reference to GDP, a growing GDP means more wealth. More wealth means your income can buy more. Over the past few decades cars, computers, TVs, phones, etc. have all become better and thus cheaper and makes our lives easier. But as a whole, you seem to lack some knowledge of economics. You throw out inflation but fail to realize there are many measures of it.
    1
  7. Woo Cheol Shin, happiness is subjective. When you look at objective measures the US is, at least, on par with other nations. Also, those "democratic socialism" countries have no min. wage, low corporate taxes, and actually tap into their fossil fuels. All of those things Bernie Sanders opposes.
    1
  8. "The overall wealth of an economy means nothing when the economy is owned by a few thousand people in a multimillion person nation. " It does. What's higher? 10% of 1000 or 50% of 100? If you were to tell me that I were to have 10% of one pile of cash or 50% of another pile of cash I will ask how big is each pile. "It is objective reality that health care and education are more expensive for the young of today than for their parents," But are vastly better. My parents did not internet for example during their college years. Also, healthcare and education are two areas in the field that are highly subsidized by the government. "productivity has skyrocketed but worker compensation has been stagnant for decades. " Not true. Look at unit labor cost, productivity and worker compensation has been around the same. If anything worker compensation has outpaced productivity. You also have to factor in better goods and services which makes them cheaper. For example, a car today is safer, last longer and gets better mileage compared to cars 30 years ago. All of which makes cars today cheaper. "won't mean anything when people are working 4 full-time jobs." Only around 5% of the nation works more than one job.
    1
  9. It is because if you have income equality usually everyone is equally poor.
    1
  10. Because a "living wage" is subjective. I shown someone that if I worked full time on $6/hr, after taxes, I will be walking away with $200 a month in savings. Also, you are paid based on what your produce based on what the market values you at.
    1
  11. Megan, the rich have a lot of assets due to the number of shares of their company they own. That is why they have so much wealth. Take that and add the fact many people, including me, have negative wealth due to loans and that is why we have wealth inequality. That isn't bad though. A person with no debt and only $10 in their name has more wealth than 25% of the nation. Why? Because many people have loans in home loans or college loans. I have negative wealth due to my college loan but I am well off still with my own apartment, my own car, three square meals a day, etc. Just saying talking points is not an argument.
    1
  12. deadmeat1471, you talk about education as a right. The reality is education is dependent on you. It is on you to educate yourself. Asking the government to educate yourself shows how ignorant you are and why you are struggling. Even if the government were to pay for college courses people who get ahead go above and beyond the minimum. They will take extra courses, be in professor's offices or seeking tutoring. They will be up late at night reading and studying.
    1
  13. "Education is free up to high school. If you truly valued your education, you would’ve studied harder in school and gotten a scholarship instead of slacking off and blaming everyone else for your problems" Very true. I find it very scary people feel they need the government to "educate" them. People that ignorant I am not surprised are struggling and asking for handouts.
    1
  14. If you were to take the top 6 executives of Walmart, cut their salary by 100%, and spread it to the 525,000 lowest paid workers of Walmart, those workers will earn an extra $147 a year. That's it. What do you accomplish by cutting CEO pay at that point?
    1
  15. Stefan, college is expensive due to the government subsidizing it. That increases demand without increasing supply. Even at that it is still an investment. Even if you get a $100,000 loan and you end up earning $60,000 a year starting with many raises later that is fine. You can pay off that loan easily. It comes down to you have to pursue the right degree. There are many high skilled jobs that are not being filled because people do not have the skills to do them. In my line of work even as a researcher, there are people who can't do it. The company I am looking to apply for in a year has many skilled jobs available that start out at $80,000 a year with nice benefits. No one has the skills to do them though. Also, that $80,000 a year is in affordable places, not expensive places.
    1
  16. Wealth is determined by assets and income. Most people have their wealth tied into their assets, including the rich. The average home owner has around 60% of their wealth tied into their home. The average home owner has around 30 times more wealth than a renter. Beyond owning a home the average person has little to no wealth. For the really wealthy they have their wealth tied into their assets. Jeff Bezos earns around $80,000 a year, but he is wealth because he owns most of the shares of Amazon. The Walton family own half of Walmart. Mark Zuckerberg earns a dollar a year, that's it. But he is worth billions due to his ownership of Facebook. They have so much wealth due to their business. It isn't because they are hoarding all of this cash or resources. They own most of a company that generates a lot of value in the market. Now mix that in with the fact that there are many people who have negative wealth due to loans, like me, now you have massive wealth inequality. A person in the US with zero debt and only $10 has more wealth than 25% of the nation. A poor person in Ethiopia has more wealth than I do as I have student debt and no major assets. Now who is worse off? That is why pointing at wealthy inequality, and talking about it when discussing income inequality shows a high level of economic illiteracy as there is a lot of differences.
    1
  17. To add on income vs wealth, the top 10% in the US earn around 40% of the income, but they have around 76% of the wealth. That is a large difference. As I said, the amount of income Jeff Bezos earns does not even put him in the 1%, but he is number one in net worth. That is a large gap. Why? Because of assets.
    1
  18. J J, they are not interchangeable, wealth involves assets. Jeff Bezos is number 1 in terms of net worth due to wealth, but not even in the 1% in terms of income gained as he earns only $80,000 a year in income.
    1
  19. "Renegade MS: Private schools are more expensive." Because the government driven up the price of education as a whole.
    1
  20. "Wealth is affected by income. Talking about both of them in a video based more around one is absolutely fine." It isn't. Read my comments on the major differences. Mark Zuckerberg earns $1 a year, much less than me. My yearly earnings are around $23,0000 a year, I earn 23,0000 times more than Zuckerberg. He is wealthy due to his assets in Facebook.
    1
  21. Zee Risek, income and wealth differ greatly. Zuckerberg is not sitting on piles of cash. Neither are people like Bezos and Buffet. I agree he is paid through stock options, but that is not income. If Facebook were to fail he will lost a ton of value very quickly. But again, he is not sitting on mountains of cash. Also, Facebook is not food, a home, a car, etc. It is a website. There is a lot to this wealth and income issue. Simply pointing out inequality on either side, and also saying that wealth inequality is the same issue as income inequality, grossly oversimplifies the issue. It does so to the degree that I cannot take people seriously to cry bloody murder over it like Bernie does. When broken down it is not a huge issue.
    1
  22. Zee Risek, to put it like this. Facebook is a website. Just because Zuckerberg owns most of the shares in it does that create more homeless people? No, because he is not hoarding homes. Does it create more hunger? No, because he is not hoarding food. He has a high collection of shares of a website that is valued high. Zuckerberg having those shares, and same with Bezos in Amazon, is not the reason why we have people in poverty, or people who are homeless, or have other struggles in society. If you were to take away their wealth you really don't gain anything in terms of resources. That is why this issue is more complicated than what you are making it out to be.
    1
  23. Zee Risek, stocks are not income. I cannot take stocks and buy bread with it. I can sell it to a buyer and gain income, but now that runs the risk for the buyer of that stock growing or shrinking. If Jeff Bezos were to sell off all of his stocks for, say $100 a piece, there is no guarantee that it would be worth that in 5 years. A new CEO could ruin the value of that company or another company could take over. As for Zuckerberg, he pays his bills from his company. All of his assets are tied into his company. But as a whole the value of a company differs greatly than the value of money. "By not paying their fair share of taxes, the tax burden is then put on the poor and middle class, thus causing poverty." Most of the poor don't pay taxes at all. Also, the reason why stock options are taxed differently is because they differ from income. It is a part of a company that grows, creates jobs and wealth. Taxing it higher can, arguably, lower job creation and wealth creation. That is why businesses can write off business expenses. Now I am all for a simplified tax code federally of a flat income tax and a consumption tax. That will eliminate that issue. Also, define "fair share". You are complaining about the structure of our tax code and financial system where I can alleviate by creating a federal flat tax and a consumption tax. Or go back to taxing the states based on population like we had pre 1913.
    1
  24. Zee, your company is different than his. Zuckerberg has a saving and has retirement tied up into Facebook. He lives off of his savings so he earns a dollar a year. However, when he retires he has an account through Facebook and stock options that fund it. Poor people pay very low taxes. For payroll taxes I support removing them. What regressive taxes do they pay though? I would agree payroll taxes are regressive because they hinder companies from paying more, they are regressive towards companies. The point is that wealth and income are vastly different. And just because there is a huge gap in income and wealth inequality does not mean there is a problem. Jeff Bezos earns more than me and is worth more than me. I earn $23,000 a year. Am I in bad shape? No. I am well off. Just because someone else is richer than me does not mean my life sucks.
    1
  25. vaagventje, wealth and income are different. I have negative wealth. The homeless guy on the street, if they have no debt, has more wealth than I do. Now who is worse off? Crying about wealth inequality is not an argument, it is a rallying cry for simplistic people.
    1
  26. Daniel, it isn't that easy.
    1
  27. Richie Sahlin, there is a correlation between state population and state GDP. CA has a high economy due to being the largest state in the country with the highest GDP. CA has many problems and does have a low standard of life. People earn $80,000 a year there and live with their parents.
    1
  28. Woo Cheol Shin, ND has one of the highest GDP growth rates in the US, and MN has one of the lowest crime rates in the US. I will agree these types of studies are very deceptive and probably aren't worth much. For example, ND and MN border Canada, CA borders Mexico, that plays a role. But CA does have many problems such as the highest rate of poverty, lowest literacy rate, and highest level of income inequality.
    1
  29. Woo Cheol Shin, there is a lot to those issues. However, living by CA I can tell you I would not want to live there unless I were very rich. Too many people, too many rules, too high of taxes, etc. Beautiful, Sunnyvale is a great place with great neighborhoods, but too many negatives.
    1
  30. Millennials do have it easy. Look at how many are bitching on Youtube.
    1
  31. Loalrikowki, the ceiling in the STEM jobs are very high. I work in research as a graduate student and the amount of research to be done is essentially unlimited.
    1
  32. zarplex2003, most people earning the min. wage are not working full time and are working a temporary job.
    1
  33. Raising the min. wage has never benefited the economy. All it does is price out low skilled workers and raise prices. Anyone who says it benefits the economy are trying to shove a square peg through a round hole.
    1
  34. True.
    1
  35. You will earn a lot as a nurse and never will be unemployed. Your debt is not an issue.
    1