Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "POLL: Americans Say Economic Inequality Is A Gigantic Problem" video.

  1. In many ways it is. Just because Bill Gates is rich does not mean you are poor.
    4
  2. Everyone works for a profit. Profits are not bad.
    3
  3. " see the thing is you just repeated your answer in a longer way that didn't actually add anything to the conversation as far as counter points are concerned most of kyle's videos address them." I did. I gave you the point in how we can have government but the ability to control it. " It's not a matter of the scale of government it's about how well they represent the people" The smaller government is the more it represents the people. Does Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell represent you? And can you vote for them? Here is the design of this country. The federal government is there to serve the states and the states make up the federal government. States send representation to the federal government in Congress. The states are there to serve the people and the people make up the states. Every state has their own culture, economy, issues, history, etc. A one size fits all policy does not work and does not represent everyone. Also, Kyle keeps pointing to small countries such as Denmark and Norway as models we should follow. Those countries are smaller than many of our states. If you compare us to countries of 100+ million people the US is number one in GDP per capita. A major reason why is because we have that set up of state rights and giving more power to the states. We should more farther there, though. "so whether it's at the small local level or the federal level you need to police the ones in power so they don't abuse it make them accountable don't allow people to buy votes or policies." The more local government is the easier it is to control. Again, can you vote for Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell? What about Kevin McCarthy? Do they represent you? At the local level you can vote for all of your representatives. I met both candidates for mayor in my city of 400,000. It can be done. Get involved. At this point to me people that want a larger federal government either 1. Are fascists or 2. Are lazy I say fascist because they want everyone to live under the government they want. If you want higher taxes or universal healthcare than establish it at your state. No other state will say no even if they disagree. I say lazy because if you are not fascist than you simply refuse to work to establish a government you want at the local level. You want the federal government, thus everyone else, to do all the work. "And the same needs to be the case for our media so that we can know when the government is abusing their power that way we can replace them with people who don't." Local media is more personal and can tell you how your local community is functioning. Also, you can't vote in the media. " the thing about all these problems is that all of it could happen but the powers at the top don't want it that way because it hurts their bottom line hence why most of the people in this chat hate profits because in a capitalist system especially one this "free markety" profit is more important than people." By establishing a government that serves you you are profiting. It is basic economics, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Someone has to get paid and someone has to work in order to produce. "On that note PLEASE tell me a non republican talking point that actually solves the situation where the lowest people aren't terrified of not being able to pay their bills where going to the hospital could bankrupt you if you don't have insurance because again you need insurance because of say it with me "profits are more important than people" in this particular system" In the end someone has to pay. If you, at a local community, want to have that done through government or charities than fine. There is not one answer. You tell me the golden answer and I can give you counter points to it. I can't give you that one set system besides what I gave you with local government. It is up to you to decide how government should function. There are plenty of benefits with profits. But how about you tell me the answer. You want representatives at the federal level to represent the people. Ever thought that Paul Ryan does represent his people and not you? Why should he represent you? You can't vote for him (assuming you don't live in that district).
    3
  4. MrMcWheaty, on the flip side wealth for all went up. For example, would you rather have a car from the 70s or one built in the 2000s? Or look at the fact that you are typing on a computer on the internet where in 1956 there was a picture taken of a hard drive that was 5 MB being lifted by a fork lift. My external hard drive is 1 TB and I can carry it. While wages may to have seem to be stagnated, things are still better overall. Not saying they are great, nor that we should not push to improve. However, for regular people, things are better.
    3
  5. Gage Acosta, the number of employees have increased. I did a quick, and dirty calculation that showed when you compared how much the CEO of Walmart earned in comparison to the number of employees they had they are actually earning 50% less now than they were 20 to 30 years ago. For example, if Company A had 100 employees and the CEO earned $200,000 a years, and 20 years later they employe 200 employees and the CEO earns $300,000 a year, that CEO is now earning less by that standard. Sure, they are earning more, but they also have grown their workforce by 100%. Now is that a bad situation? My overall point is that you have to stop these talking points as there is much more to it than that.
    3
  6. Marco, the business owner I worked for was great. He was personal and cared about his workers. When I needed time off he gave it. Now I was one of his more productive workers, but he did not "exploit" anyone. If you are being "exploited" as a worker than chances are you simply suck.
    2
  7. PaleGhost69, around 70% of lottery winners go bankrupt. People have poor money management skills. There are some issues in regarding out tax code and government. But as a whole people have poor money management skills.
    2
  8. PaleGhost69, there is a correlation. 70% of people who win the lottery go bankrupt because they mismanage money. Around 50% of businesses fail within 5 years. Those people have better money management skills as they are looking to run a business and are able to convince a bank to give them a loan. But again, most people do not have good money management skills. "Not to mention your completely ignoring the fact that people who do lotteries are HORRIBLE with money planning to begin with or they wouldn't be doing fucking lotteries" Lottery tickets cost a buck. I bought 2 a week. That is $104 a year. Actually less because if I won a dollar I would just turn around and buy another ticket. If you can't afford $104 a year for the possibility to win millions you are in trouble. But the reality is that people are poor with their money. That is why they are not rich or owning businesses. You want another example? Look at our student loan situation and how people are complaining because they can't pay back a $30,000 loan. That is poor money management skills.
    2
  9. PaleGhose69 "Anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything. " I agree, but it says a lot. People there have a different culture. What is "poor" to you is not "poor" to them. You may look at my situation and see that I earn $23,000 a year. You may call that poor. In reality I am not. Someone, as in my friend earning $60,000 a year and lives with their parents may be considered poor, but they are fine. Those in that situation are fine. You are on the outside looking in. " In your own state of West Virginia Lottery Spending Per Person is $359.78" I would like to see a source for that. " And if you look at the states that spend the most on lottery per person, it lines up scarily with the Poverty percentage I shared before." Again, I would like to see a source for that. " YES, YOU SPASTIC FUCKING MORON. THAT IS THE PROBLEM! WHAT PART OF LIVING PAYCHECK TO PAYCHECK DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND. PEOPLE WHO BUY LOTTERY ACCOUNT FOR ONLY 30% OF THE TOTAL POPULATION!" And? What's your point. "Businesses fail for more reasons than money management. " I agree, but that is a part of it. "Average Income: $55,775 Average graduate Income: $50,556 Average Expenditures: $57,311" I would like to see a source for that as well. However, using an average is deceptive. Median is better to use as an average can be skewed by outliers.
    2
  10. " so what you really want is a communist system where everyone is controlled by the government since everyone is apparently "bad" at money that 70-90% of people are bad at money " Nope, I do not support that at all. I support the opposite. I am just pointing out how many people are bad with their money which is why they live paycheck after paycheck. There is more to it than that, but to counter what that one person said I showed that many are simply bad with their money. " if your not saying that then what your really saying is you don't give a shit about other people and they can rot for all you care" Not saying that at all. In fact, a counter argument I can give to myself is that if you earn more money why not enjoy it? You only live once. Maybe spending it all monthly is all you need in life. My point is that to simply say "X% of people are living paycheck by paycheck" is a broad statement to make that needs more details. "You simply don't care about suffering " Not true. I do care. You have to consider if they are suffering to begin with.
    2
  11. " so since you seem to care and you don't want a communist system then I guess you have solutions then?" Establish smaller, more local government and give power back to the people. There is a desire to have government and regulations. However, we the people have to be able to control governments. You can do that by keeping it as local as possible. People make mistakes, and there is a desire to have government help them. People have bad luck and also with government you can have organization. However, if you don't control government you end up with oppression. That will be a good start for me though, establishing a strong local government and reduce the size of the federal government.
    2
  12. " so.... do the same things but on a smaller scale" No. At the federal level you can only vote for the congress members in you state. At the state and local level you can vote for them all. Also, the more local government is the easier it is for you to control it and you can see if government is working for you. I can look out my window and see if government is working well. You can't as easily at the federal level. "what happens to the poorer states?" Define "poor". That is subjective in some ways. Also, those states will just have to find a way to get better. "Why should the richer states even stay in the country they should secede" Because you create a lot of problems that way. First off, what states are truly rich? Really none of them besides ND and TX due to oil. But if they leave now they have to pay import and export taxes on that. And their citizens need a passport to visit another state. Another advantage of local government is if one state messes up the situation is localized. You want the entire country to sink or swim. Think about Flint. Sure that was bad, but it was localized. You want the federal government to run our water system so everyone is screwed.
    2
  13. "I want a system Where 99% + of the businesses are owned and managed (IE determine what is done with profits and how money is spent and what are the wages and benefits workers receive) by All their employees both managers and regular employees via Worker Cooperatives." Some businesses can't do that. Do you really want to run a restaurant where a lot of your workers do not even have a high school diploma like that? Work Cooperatives work well when 1. The workers have some skill, as in at least a AA degree 2. The workers work full time 3. Overall, the workers are dedicated to the business It does not work when you have 1. Low skilled workers 2. Workers who are part time 3. Workers who are temporary and short term
    2
  14. "Ha whyamimrpink78 has no ideas WE WIN team republican talking points is total garbage woots all around" So no counter point by you?
    2
  15. Nick Avick, smaller government has a greater incentive to serve the people. Again, does Paul Ryan serve you? If that answer is no than vote them out......oh, wait, unless you live in that district you can't. A more local government serve that community based on their culture, history, economics, etc. What works in one state or city may not work in another. In my hometown we have less of a need for government as we had charities and a strong connection community wise. In larger cities, as where I live now, there is a great need for government. You offered no solution yourself. I have.
    2
  16. Income inequality is not bad. Just because someone is really rich does not mean people are poor. If someone got rich by providing goods and services people demanded than that is good.
    2
  17. Also, read this https://hbr.org/2017/02/why-we-need-to-stop-obsessing-over-ceo-pay-ratios
    2
  18. Gorsuch is a strict constructionist that has ruled against corporations in the past.
    1
  19. If you look at countries with 100+ million people the US is number 1 in GDP per capita. Comparing us to other countries that are small is size if not really valid.
    1
  20. The same Wolff who does not understand what wealth is?
    1
  21. People's feelings does not necessarily mean something is true. However, 48% say it is a big problem, 47% do not pay federal income taxes.
    1
  22. People think they are poor because rich people are rich. It is sad people feel that way and are that jealous but that is the way it is.
    1
  23. Joshua Caine, there is a correlation between being poor and being obese. I don't think people are starving.
    1
  24. Lord Caselvanir, those countries are small and I do not consider them to be rich. Compare us to countries with more people. Russia and Egypt have a lot of people and have a lower Gini Coefficient, is that the economic model we want to follow? As a whole there is a lot to the economy and in my opinion the US, with our size and diversity, is doing well. Out of countries with 100+ million people we are number 1 in GDP per capita. Also, just because we have rich people does not mean you are poor.
    1
  25. Marco, less than 5% of the nation works more than two jobs. China is a developing country. It makes what we have look great though.
    1
  26. No one wants to give money to the rich. Those on the right just want those who earned money to be allowed to keep more of it. I support that in they are the ones who are smart with money, might as well let them invest it. And that has worked. In reality democrats love giving money to the rich. Remember, who did the bank bailouts?
    1
  27. In reality wealth inequality is good. The Walton family owns a lot of wealth because they own half of Walmart. That means the stores, the trucks, the land, etc. Walmart benefits many people as it is a place for people with low income to buy goods they need. Not saying it is 100% good, but people who cry about economic inequality are to me economically illiterate. Egypt has a low Gini Coefficient and 90+ million people, is that the economic model we want to follow?
    1
  28. Smiley Snake, everyone has access to a high school education and everyone is capable of being responsible and not have kids before they are ready. Now there is more to it than that, and I am willing to discuss this issue in detail. But as a whole that is a major part of it and just because someone is rich does not mean you are poor.
    1
  29. Praxis, I have never been in Charlottesville.
    1
  30. " do you have any idea if that ‘calculation’ is applicable to the real world?" It is in ways. There is a lot to it. You had 104,000 associates in Walmart in the early 80s. In the late 80s the average CEO earned around 2.5 million dollars. Now Walmart employs 2.2 million people and the average CEO earned around $10 million. So the CEO earns around 4 times more but for Walmart they employed 20 times more employees. Now Doug McMillion earns around $21 million a year. So even if you double that Doug McMillion is making around 8 times more but they stilled employed 20 times more employees. Again, quick and dirty, but overall you have to stop this comparison of the CEO to the average employee. You need to compare the CEO to all employees and their income combine. You are putting it in a different perspective at that point that to me is more accurate. I don't mind if a CEO earns a lot if they are growing a company as well that creates more wealth for all.
    1