This is truly scary.

[youbet]

Since we're on the topic of the top 1%, I wonder how many people on here who are retired early would have made it to the top 1% if they stayed at it. Using the uncited chart provided by youbet the amount is only about 8mil. How many people on here retired in their 30's, 40's, or early 50's with over 7 digits. I would bet many would be able to make it into the 1% club. If you are so scared about the top 1% controlling too much wealth, why don't you hang around the work place to get there?

Bear in mind that the bottom of the 1% club was about $8M in 2001 dollars. But it's a steep, steep line upward from there! The top is at the 100's of billions of bux!! The last guy into the 1% club is a long, long, long way from the top guy!

I don't think I'm going to make it.

 

[Texas Proud]

Also, the same study notes that most teachers end up spending their own money buying things for their classrooms.OK this is lower than I thought. And does that account for the summer hiatus?

Wow a 90% pension! I got 42% after 25 years in the private sector. And they are still leaving? What are they going?

It is 2.2% for each year you work... and you can buy a few years when you retire.... just like compounding... working 40 plus years adds up..

 

[Texas Proud]

Not as bad as that? Again, why, then, are 50% of kids who enter the profession leaving for greener pastures in 5 years? This used to be a lifetime career, and while admittedly "lifetime careers" are more and more a thing of the past for almost everyone, every major education group I've checked on states concerns about this.

And yes, the pensions are generally awesome. That's one of the great things about my job as well. I wish SSI could be managed by an organization like the one that manages my pension, rather than by the hacks who get elected to public office.

Just in case you think my friends and family are "below average," (despite their getting awards as superior educators) here is a stat from the NEA:

Also, the same study notes that most teachers end up spending their own money buying things for their classrooms.

I'm just saying that we need to rethink the way they're treated; compensation needs to be commensurate with skill and education, just like any other professional. And teachers need to have more of a voice in how the system works. They're the ones who actually deal with the children. But, as is true with a lot of things, it's gasbags in political office pulling ideas out of their backsides who are making the important calls.

Lots of professions have a short time frame. As an accountant, you went to a Big 4 (8 when I was there) and put in two or three years... get burned out and move to someplace else... I would bet that doctors at hospitals also have a high burnout rate.. I will agree that there is not a good place for teachers to go to start their own firm...

Not trying to put down your relatives... but if they were working 15 hours a day (assuming only 5 days)... that is 75 hours... I still say that is NOT NORMAL... even your stats of 50 hours makes it only 10 hours a day... and does that include lunch?? What about commute time?? I really don't know... but an 8 hour work day is 9 in the office and 1 to 3 for commute for the others that make so much more...

Compensations for ANY profession is a supply and demand number... if you can get all you want at a lower rate.. then why pay more?? One of the problems with teacher pay is that it is like a union... all workers produce the same and are paid the same.. based on time and education level... there is not a good way to have someone 'shine' and get rewarded for it...

 

[ERD50]

I'm talking about the vague line between the top 1% and 2% and down. You keep bringing up the bottom 25% and blaaah blaaah blaaah. Probably best to just drop it.

I think you've been interweaving another posters points of view and mine.

Well, I *did* weave the bottom 25% numbers from the LKH posts, as I thought they kind of tied into the overall discussion of 'haves vs have-nots'. Sorry if that confused.

We can drop it if you'd like - been plenty of discussion already, but I guess I *am* confused about what group you are talking about. 1%, the line between 1% to 2%, and you've mentioned the 0.1% group?

Numbers aside, you seemed concerned that too much wealth will be controlled by too few. And I'm just saying, looking at the Forbes list, it just does not seem like an unlikely group, or a scary group to be controlling wealth - they are the ones that (for the most part) earned it.

Over and out on this topic - ERD50

PS - if I get some time later, I might like to start a new thread on that topic of differential pay for teachers in short supply (math, science, etc). It sounds like some members of our school board are willing to tackle that issue, and I think it is a good one. Contracts are coming up soon in our district - oh joy.

 

[LKH]

Hmmmmmm....guess we need to define terms Justin. I'm talking about the percentage of the total wealth pie (regardless of wealth pie size) that the top 1% controls. If one group is going to control more of the pie, someone else is going to control less.

I'm all for innovation, competition and rewarding the winners. And I love to see the size of the pie grow. But we're talking about percentage of the pie controlled by the top 1%. As the top 1% has almost 40% of the pie now, how much more should they get?

That there is the point I've been trying to make.

 

[LKH]

What I don't want to see is that years from now we look and see that top 0.1% control 40%? 50%? whatever of our wealth and have established barriers to entry that are impossible for the middle class entrepreneur to overcome.

I'd rather see 100's of middle class entrepreneurs establish businesses worth a few million each than say, the Waltons, become worth yet another one billion. The Waltons are great folks, love them Arkansans, and don't begrudge them their success. Still, it's hard to not cheer for a newbie! At least for me......

Agree with that as well. Let me reiterate that NOBODY HERE is arguing for wealth redistribution. What I've been arguing for from the start is making it more possible for more people to enter the ranks of success.

Seriously, if only 1% of the people control 30+%, and the top 20% own 81% of the nation's wealth, then can it be argued that the "average" person controls the "average" amount of wealth? It can't. Basically, 80% of us have to share the last 20%. And a good percentage of the top 20% isn't there because they innovate or because they earned it. They have it because great-granddaddy innovated, and granddaddy earned it. You can't argue that the rest of us have the same chance to get where they are.

Yes, there are the rare (exceedingly) and fortunate exceptions, people who have the right idea at the right time and make the right connections to make things come together. They worked hard and it paid off. But a hell of a lot of people worked just as hard and failed. It's not like those rare exceptions are so much more brilliant or so much more hardworking than anyone else.

I'd like to see the playing field leveled just a little bit, and a good place to start would be by making sure EVERYONE who works full time can live on what they make. It's just not an unreasonable thing to expect.

L

 

[LKH]

LKH, thanks for the replies, but you keep twisting this away from the the point that you made, which I was responding to. You (and others) were concerned about the concentration of wealth (bold mine):

You are twisting what I said, or at the very least misinterpreting. I have no problem with people getting rich. I just think that some folks are making it harder than it has to be for most folks to even get by. Look at the profits posted by Exxon and Chevron, while the middle and lower class people have a tough time buying gas at the end of the month. Yes, they're running a business for profit, but when they jack up the price by nearly 50 cents a gallon just before high travel seasons, they're gouging, because they can. Ditto insurance companies. Some of them are posting obscene profits while children are going without basic healthcare because their parents have been priced out of family coverage.

Sure, some people contribute in whatever way they can. But the discussion was whether the top 1% of wealth concentration was acting to the detriment of the general public. I'm sure there are cases of that, but I'm not seeing any big trend that I am aware of. I don't see that any action is required to 'correct' this.

I think you are not paying attention, then. I don't think there's any evil conspiracy. But I think greed motivates companies, as in the above examples, to run prices up to where they're unnecessarily out of reach for the less fortunate. If the product is a computer or luxury item, I don't really object too much. But if the product is something that most people NEED, like insurance and gasoline, then I do object to gouging, and I do think companies are acting to the detriment of the public. Exxon could make a bit less profit and keep its product more affordable. And maybe they shouldn't be allowed to act so completely out of self-interest that they do harm to a large segment of the general public.

Maybe there should be another thread - 'What maximum/minimum standard of living should the US dictate?'? That is what you are proposing.

I am not proposing a maximum standard of living. I think I've made that abundantly clear. I am proposing a MINIMUM standard of living, yes, and that may make the maximum a little less maximum. But the rich will still be rich, don't you worry.

8)

 

[LKH]

Lots of professions have a short time frame. As an accountant, you went to a Big 4 (8 when I was there) and put in two or three years... get burned out and move to someplace else... I would bet that doctors at hospitals also have a high burnout rate.. I will agree that there is not a good place for teachers to go to start their own firm...

Not to mention, it does not affect our children when accountants go find something else to do. It DOES affect kids when their teachers, just about the time they should be getting really good at what they do, burn out and walk away. The question is, is the current system the best we can do for our kids. In my state, 30% of kids in high school drop out without graduating. Could it be because we're not attracting and retaining the best, most innovative, most successful teachers possible? Could it be because those people who would be best able to help those kids are being skimmed off by better opportunities, or talked out of the profession by people who know how tough it's getting?

Not trying to put down your relatives... but if they were working 15 hours a day (assuming only 5 days)... that is 75 hours... I still say that is NOT NORMAL... even your stats of 50 hours makes it only 10 hours a day... and does that include lunch?? What about commute time?? I really don't know... but an 8 hour work day is 9 in the office and 1 to 3 for commute for the others that make so much more...

I think I said some of my friends report they put in those kinds of hours. One of them, admittedly, is a very disorganized person. Others teach younger kids. The setup alone can take a couple hours before each class, and then there's the lesson plans, and the cleanup, and the paperwork for all the government BS they have to put up with these days - way more than used to be.

That 10 hours ON AVERAGE factors in more experienced teachers who have previously built out their systems, and so are now more efficient.

And no, I wouldn't argue that commuting or eating count as work. I only wish they did. LOL. I'd be in for a TON of OT.

Compensations for ANY profession is a supply and demand number... if you can get all you want at a lower rate.. then why pay more?? One of the problems with teacher pay is that it is like a union... all workers produce the same and are paid the same.. based on time and education level... there is not a good way to have someone 'shine' and get rewarded for it...

The question is, who do we want to be supplying, and what are we demanding? Do we want to treat our educators like "low-bid" contractors? You get what you pay for. If you do want to get away with the cheapest possible wages, then you're in no position to complain when schools are dropping out 30% of their students, and 30% of those who go on to higher ed have to have some remedial education before they can get through first year. Personally, that's not what I'd choose for the generation that is one day going to run this country - and control my pension and healthcare.

L

 

[Texas Proud]

I'd like to see the playing field leveled just a little bit, and a good place to start would be by making sure EVERYONE who works full time can live on what they make. It's just not an unreasonable thing to expect.

Sorry for this snide comment... but anybody who is at minimum wage for over 6 months will not be in the top 1%... if you have that potential, then it will show up and you will move ahead...

The minimum wage (for long term workers) is for people who will NEVER make it to the rich class... giving them more money will not 'level the field'..

The US is one of the most level playing fields in the world.... if they can not make it here.. they will not...

 

[lets-retire]

Seriously, if only 1% of the people control 30+%, and the top 20% own 81% of the nation's wealth, then can it be argued that the "average" person controls the "average" amount of wealth? It can't. Basically, 80% of us have to share the last 20%. And a good percentage of the top 20% isn't there because they innovate or because they earned it. They have it because great-granddaddy innovated, and granddaddy earned it. You can't argue that the rest of us have the same chance to get where they are.

Considering the top 20% only have a median net worth of about $190,000, including the value of their home, I would have to disagree with your statement. This amount is easily obtainable for the normal person during the course of a career. As for how the top 20% received their wealth, have you read The Millionaire Next Door? I'd suggest you read it. The author reports that most American millionaires EARNED what they had and did not inherit it. Since the median net worth of the top 20% is so low I would have to think they also earned their wealth not inherited it.

 

[LKH]

Sorry for this snide comment... but anybody who is at minimum wage for over 6 months will not be in the top 1%... if you have that potential, then it will show up and you will move ahead...

The minimum wage (for long term workers) is for people who will NEVER make it to the rich class... giving them more money will not 'level the field'..

The US is one of the most level playing fields in the world.... if they can not make it here.. they will not...

I agree that not everyone has an equal shot at getting rich. But that does not negate the FACT that even the least of us should be able to live on what he earns, if he works hard, full time. If you don't agree with that, then, frankly, I think you're out of line to complain about people who choose to be on the dole because they can make more money that way - and WAY out of line to suggest that they should make LESS on the dole. People have to live. Would you rather we had huge numbers of people starving like children in Ethiopia in this country where we brag about our great standard of living?

 

[LKH]

Considering the top 20% only have a median net worth of about $190,000, including the value of their home, I would have to disagree with your statement. This amount is easily obtainable for the normal person during the course of a career. As for how the top 20% received their wealth, have you read The Millionaire Next Door? I'd suggest you read it. The author reports that most American millionaires EARNED what they had and did not inherit it. Since the median net worth of the top 20% is so low I would have to think they also earned their wealth not inherited it.

You define "normal," as probably most well-off people do, a bit differently than is consistent with the facts. The NORMAL person, my friend, has an average IQ of about 100 and a high school diploma. The NORMAL person with that skillset and intellect, my friend, has almost ZERO chance of making that kind of money, no matter how determined or motivated he is. There just aren't that many jobs out there with that kind of paycheck, and they aren't going to "normal" people. They are going to remarkable people, who are smarter than average and/or well-educated, who are willing to sacrifice things like time with family to put in the 80+ hours a week it sometimes takes to get there. I don't fault those folks for succeeding, but the "normal" person, if he works fulltime, deserves a chance to live well enough that he can afford a tank of gas without crossing meat off the family's grocery list.

You forget that "middle class" and "average" income figures are skewed a bit by that top 20%. MOST people aren't living as well as those numbers suggest.

 

[kcowan]

... the "normal" person, if he works fulltime, deserves a chance to live well enough that he can afford a tank of gas without crossing meat off the family's grocery list.

Not sure where you live but you are defining normal to include a car. In the big cities, many normal people do not own a car. Why? Because it is too expensive and they choose to spend their income on more important things.

So don't try to define minimum wages in those terms. You will not get much support.

 

[lets-retire]

Run the simple equation on a savings calculator. Save $100 per month with a measly return of 6% per year for 42 years. The end result is over $200,000. Even if the person is only able to save $50 per month the magic 190,000 figure is obtainable they just need to earn %8. While that is a little tougher, it is not out of the question. Even when I was living on only 10,000 per year is was able to save $50 per month.

Many times the normal person has purchased things that put them in peril of not being able to save. It is not that they do not have the ability to save, it is that they do not have the will to save. Most people outside of this board can easily cut $100 out of their everyday spending, but they choose not to. Look around your neighborhood how many people do you see who probably could have purchased a slightly less expensive car, house, toy, whatever and squeeze out a little extra savings. When I was policing the crack houses and section 8 apartment complexes, it amazed me how many people on government assistance had nicer furnishing than I did. Most had cable, costing close to $100/month, and several video game consoles on the floor. Many even opted to purchase a home computer and pay for internet access instead of using the free ones at the library. Almost all the residents I dealt with had vehicles even though they lived in an area that had a well established public transport system. I've just shown where these poor people could easily save over $100 per month, if they wanted. I don't think the middle class people would find it all that difficult to cut their spending, if they put a priority on it, but many sadly don't.

As I've stated in many previous posts my wife has only a high school education (where she graduated a little lower than the middle), but with a little hard work has been able to earn a very nice salary. The only thing the system said she had going for her was her work ethic. You can't make me believe it cannot be done.

I do not look at average anything. Once I learned that the average can easily be skewed, I shifted my attention to the median, it is a much better indicator of the center.

 

[OKLibrarian]

Not sure where you live but you are defining normal to include a car. In the big cities, many normal people do not own a car. Why? Because it is too expensive and they choose to spend their income on more important things.

So don't try to define minimum wages in those terms. You will not get much support.

Plenty of support from me. most people, especially most poor people we're describing here, do NOT live in the big city. to have a job, you have to have a car, unless you're lucky enough to score something within walking distance.

 

[Joss]

Librarians are not supposed to talk about "scoring" things. 8)

 

[ERD50]

You are twisting what I said, or at the very least misinterpreting. I have no problem with people getting rich. I just think that some folks are making it harder than it has to be for most folks to even get by.

Maybe I am misinterpreting - sorry, communication over a forum has its limits. I thought you did have a problem with people getting rich - you said they can be expected to use their wealth to the detriment of others.

Look at the profits posted by Exxon and Chevron,...

This has been discussed in other threads. Exxon profit margin is lower than the average Fortune 500 company. Price is determined by world oil prices and supply/demand - I don't think there has been any evidence of price manipulation, just accusations. Oil is a world-wide commodity, and the Exxon share is not all that large.

I don't think there's any evil conspiracy. But I think greed motivates companies, as in the above examples, to run prices up to where they're unnecessarily out of reach for the less fortunate.

This is tough to do in a free market. If I raise my prices to an unusually high profit margin, someone else will come in to take business away from me and still make a good profit. Only a conspiracy (illegal price fixing, etc) can alter that. Yes, greed motivates companies and people, and in a free market that is a good thing. It means we get great new products and services that require investments, risk, talent and hard work. We would not have many of those if there wasn't an attractive risk/reward ratio (the *chance* to get 'rich').

I am not proposing a maximum standard of living. I think I've made that abundantly clear. I am proposing a MINIMUM standard of living

I thought you were through your statements of distrust of the rich. OK, so what minimum would you suggest? You mentioned $14K/year (~$7/hr) is too low for an adult full time worker. 1.5x that? 2x?

-ERD50

 

[Martha]

If you had a minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, plus earned income credit, and health care coverage, I could live with that. Index it to inflation as well.


You folks should read the book Black Swan and tell me if it is worth reading. I am on a waiting list. http://www.amazon.com/Black-Swan-Impact-Highly-Improbable/dp/1400063515 It talks in part about how many things are really distributed on an L-shape curve (such as wealth) but people tend to think we are all sitting on a bell shape curve.

 

[ERD50]

Considering the top 20% only have a median net worth of about $190,000, including the value of their home,...

LKH: The NORMAL person, my friend, has an average IQ of about 100 and a high school diploma. The NORMAL person with that skillset and intellect, my friend, has almost ZERO chance of making that kind of money, no matter how determined or motivated he is.

Almost ZERO chance? The data does not agree with you. From that earlier ref: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p70-88.pdf

Median Net Worth by Type of Household and Age of Householder: 2000

Married-couplehouseholds... 55 to 64 years... $172,425

So, the normal (median) person (as part of a married couple - which is probably also pretty normal) *is* actually getting into that $190K ballpark. Half in that group have a NW above $172K, pretty safe to say some significant number will be around $190K.

And, remember, that is what they are actually *doing*. As lets-retire points out, a little attention to LBYM, no credit card debt, and saving an extra $50 or $100 a month would go a long, long way towards increasing that number.

You forget that "middle class" and "average" income figures are skewed a bit by that top 20%. MOST people aren't living as well as those numbers suggest.

That is why we use median figures - half are above half below. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet might skew an average, but probably would not move the median by a thousandth of a penny.

I'm not so sure the 'normal' person is as doomed as you make it sound.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

You folks should read the book Black Swan and tell me if it is worth reading. I am on a waiting list. http://www.amazon.com/Black-Swan-Impact-Highly-Improbable/dp/1400063515 It talks in part about how many things are really distributed on an L-shape curve (such as wealth) but people tend to think we are all sitting on a bell shape curve.

Martha, I read Taleb's earlier book 'Fooled by Randomness'. He talks about the black swan events. Written in a bit of a story-book fashion, he tells the tales of some traders and how their success was just a combination of aggressive trades and luck, until they get hit by a 'black swan' event. The 'good ones' are just the result of 'survivorship bias'. You don't hear about the ones that went broke along the way.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

Let me reiterate that NOBODY HERE is arguing for wealth redistribution. ....

Seriously, if only 1% of the people control 30+%, and the top 20% own 81% of the nation's wealth, then can it be argued that the "average" person controls the "average" amount of wealth? It can't. Basically, 80% of us have to share the last 20%.

LKH, I've been noodling on this, and I think I'm learning just why the wealth is distributed the way it is. Your seemingly attractive idea that the average person control the average wealth just won't work mathematically. Unless you really do want to limit the reward of the risk takers, or starve the bottom of the rank. I understand Martha's reference to the 'L' shaped distribution of wealth. It makes sense. Try this:

Picture a town with just 100 people. The average net worth is $100,000, so the total wealth of the town is 100 x $100,000 = $10M. Your approach means that person #50 has a NW of $100,000.

You agree that the most innovative(say 5%), the ones that will create businesses and jobs and create wealth deserve a bigger slice of the pie. But every extra $ we allocate to them, has to come from the bottom group, so that #50 can stay at $100K. I found that it is pretty hard to reward the risk takers, and give some incremental boost to say ranks 6 through 25 (maybe these represent 'professionals', or other people with special skills), and a boost to ranks 26 through 50 (above average productivity workers) without running out of money for the bottom half!

So an 'L' shape makes sense. Less than average for the average. That leaves some to allocate to the bottom so those people don't starve, and some to reward the top performers. And, I'd say the human 'talent pool' is 'L' shaped also - so it all fits. The few most talented in a group are generally far and away more talented than the average person. I think this applies to wealth creators. I know plenty of people that are competent workers, but very, very few that could go out and really create a successful new business model.

If we are not willing to reward the risk takers, that usually has dire consequences for the worker bees - no new jobs.

-ERD50

 

[Texas Proud]

I agree that not everyone has an equal shot at getting rich. But that does not negate the FACT that even the least of us should be able to live on what he earns, if he works hard, full time. If you don't agree with that, then, frankly, I think you're out of line to complain about people who choose to be on the dole because they can make more money that way - and WAY out of line to suggest that they should make LESS on the dole. People have to live. Would you rather we had huge numbers of people starving like children in Ethiopia in this country where we brag about our great standard of living?

Now you are changing what you are supporting... you seem to say that the minimum wage is what is keeping these peopld down.. and they should have a level playing field.... and I said that amount does not matter for them...

Your next post says that the average guy does not have a chance... but the average worker is in the $35 or $36K range IIRC... so their salary is much higher than the minimum..

I think the average wage earner can live well in this country... and looking at the percent of home ownership seems to support this statement (over 70%... maybe close to 80%)...

The total percent of people that GET the minimum wage that are NOT teenagers or young adults is VERY SMALL... the number that stay there are even less... I would bet that the number is less than 1% of the population of workers..

 

[LKH]

Not sure where you live but you are defining normal to include a car. In the big cities, many normal people do not own a car. Why? Because it is too expensive and they choose to spend their income on more important things.

So don't try to define minimum wages in those terms. You will not get much support.

Not everyone (or even a majority) lives on the east coast. The farther west you go, the harder you will find it to do without a car, even in the cities. In my city it would be next to hellish to try to get to and from the grocery store by bus. You NEED a car, or you're pretty well up a creek.

 

[LKH]

Run the simple equation on a savings calculator. Save $100 per month with a measly return of 6% per year for 42 years. The end result is over $200,000. Even if the person is only able to save $50 per month the magic 190,000 figure is obtainable they just need to earn %8. While that is a little tougher, it is not out of the question.

OK, first, I apologize because I misread your post initially. I somehow missed that you were talking about "net worth including house," and thought you were talking "salary." That makes sense, if you're talking about the top 20%. I could see the median salary range for that top 20% being around that figure. It makes no sense at all for that figure to be net worth including house.

Here are figures I found:

Age: 20-29
Median Net Worth: $7,900
Top 25%: $36,000
Top 10%: $119,300

Age: 30-39
Median Net Worth: $44,200
Top 25%: $128,100
Top 10%: $317,800

Age: 40-49
Median Net Worth: $117,800
Top 25%: $338,100
Top 10%: $719,800

Age: 50-59
Median Net Worth: $182,300
Top 25%: $563,800
Top 10%: $1,187,600

Age: 60-69
Median Net Worth: $209,200
Top 25%: $647,200
Top 10%: $1,429,500

Source: Federal Reserve Board's 2004 Survey of Consumer Finances

So your median net worth figure works if you're talking total population, but if you want the median net worth of the top 25%, then you're looking at a whole HECK of a lot more.

Even when I was living on only 10,000 per year is was able to save $50 per month.

I'm guessing you lived on that a long time ago. When I first got out of university, I found a job at $1k a month, and while I wasn't going out to buy any new cars, I got by on it. But back then, a gallon of gas cost $1.50, and you could get a nice one-bedroom apartment (fireplace and pool) for $350 a month. Health insurance was totally employer-paid, and I could get a week's groceries, plus cash back for gas and a lunch or two, for $60. These days, the poverty level is higher than that.

As I've stated in many previous posts my wife has only a high school education (where she graduated a little lower than the middle), but with a little hard work has been able to earn a very nice salary. The only thing the system said she had going for her was her work ethic. You can't make me believe it cannot be done.

I know some people who've done it as well, including two siblings. But both have higher than average IQ's and a well-educated family (so that they have some level of education just by osmosis) and some other advantages that the "average joe" doesn't necessarily have.

I'll grant you that some folks on the dole spend money on "stuff" when saving would stand them better in the long term. Talk to some people in nonprofits that work with lower-income people on financial education, though, and you'll understand that an awful lot of people don't really grasp how finances work, or how quickly setting aside money can turn into something truly beneficial to them. If you'd never been in a family that handled money well, and your school didn't teach you how to balance a bank book or handle credit or why earning interest is a good thing, you wouldn't get the concept either until someone explained it.

 

[LKH]

Maybe I am misinterpreting - sorry, communication over a forum has its limits. I thought you did have a problem with people getting rich - you said they can be expected to use their wealth to the detriment of others.

No. I did not say that. I said that many wealthy people act out of self-interest and greed, to the detriment of others. That's a bit different, I think.

This has been discussed in other threads. Exxon profit margin is lower than the average Fortune 500 company. Price is determined by world oil prices and supply/demand - I don't think there has been any evidence of price manipulation, just accusations. Oil is a world-wide commodity, and the Exxon share is not all that large.

It's a world-wide commodity, but gas costs 25 cents a gallon in some places, and it's $3 a gallon here. We can talk about overhead, but the process of getting gas to filling stations in the US during the "off" travel seasons is no different, so you'll be hard-pressed to explain to me how they justify jacking up the price by 25% every year just before the holidays and again before summer vacations when the kids get off school.

I thought you were through your statements of distrust of the rich. OK, so what minimum would you suggest? You mentioned $14K/year (~$7/hr) is too low for an adult full time worker. 1.5x that? 2x?

I'm not sure what in my statement elicited your first comment. As for the question, the minimum would be a living wage. Enough, as I've said before, to afford health insurance, a decent place to live, healthy food, and transportation.