American reacts to Wealth Inequality in America
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 12. 2023
- Thank you for watching me, a humble American, react to Wealth Inequality in America
Original video: • Wealth Inequality in A...
Got a video request? Fill out this form!
forms.gle/NeQp2oN5gzxpxXLx8
Thanks for subscribing for more European reactions!
But when someone from Europe criticizes the US system, all US citizens scream "COMMUNISM!". But it is not communism to improve the system. It would only be about an improvement from which not only all people, but even the economy and the state would benefit. It is the greed of the few that is ruining your country.
The same happens in Europe, probably even worse. In Western countries, the richest families are the richest families for centuries. Revolution or not, WW or not, Monarchy or not.
The difference being that they are far more discrete than their US counterparts.
Europe is no paradise you know?
@@fabios.3510 I agree, but mpst of Europe do still take care of their citizens with universal healthcare and workballance and if they can not afford to take care of them self there is social security, or when they reach pension age we dont force them out on the streets to beg or pack bags at Walmart. We dont let childred starve either. Europe is not perfect at all, but it is by far a better option if you are not the top percents in the US.
@@alexandrequemy There are certainly inherited wealth in Europe but where did Paris Hilton get her money from. The US has lower social mobility than large parts of Europe.
A poor person in the US is more likely to stay poor than the poor in Europe.
@@alexandrequemyinhale that sweet sweet copium
I think George Carlin said it best: "It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it"
I have yet to see an American who understands the metric of Social Mobility, and how it is actually possible to measure whether or not the American Dream is real. The numbers do not lie.
@@the11382 Yes, it is possible to measure. However, it can be fickle. Like my math teacher in high school said: "there's 3 types of lies; white lies, cursed lies, and statistics" :)
Socialism is an economic system, communism is a political system. They are often incorrectly confused with one another.
That is true but what is also true is that all communism is based on socialism but not all socialism is communism.
Socialism and communism are both still philosophically rooted and there are MANY different ways of interpreting them.
the USA fabricates anti SOCIALIST propaganda constantly !! the USA is under the spell of PROPAGANDA ... so middle class can not see the REALITY !!
@@Basih it's rather most communist countries choose socialism, but look at china, politically communist but with mixed economy (free capitalist market, but state covers all areas of human life, it's used by most countries in the world).
nah I don't agree with this
marx himself wrote that socialism is a prestage of communism
communism is essentially socialism with a classless you could say ideal society with social equality in which the wealth is distributed fairly and evenly
communism is more of type of society and not a political system
edit: that's also why countries don't call themselves communistic
because they haven't achieved it yet
they have a socialist system, but haven't reached the point of communism
Very American. No Differentiation between Socialism and Communism whatsoever. 😁
A janitor is of far more value to society than a hedge fund manager.
Interestingly there are books and papers analyzing the job security in regard to obsolete work due to automatism and AI. Jobs like janitor are allegedly one of the most secure because they ask for flexibility and pragmatism (similar assumptions are made for social jobs where human empathy plays a string role) while many of the high-income ones can be automated much more easily. The question is how long it takes to see effects.
We're living in an interesting time.
I've meet a few of those privileged Americans. Their attitude toward the struggles of the working class is "they should have gone to college"
Disregarding the economic reasons why that wasn't an option.
No society can run with everyone being in management.
I, for one, really appreciate the garbage collectors and the maintenance workers taking care of the water supply , electricity and sewage.
Not to mention the "grunts" stocking the shelves in the supermarket.
Infinitely.
but but....the TRICKLE DOWN!!!
Turns out that warm rain is indeed just piss.
welcome to USA! A land by the poor, FOR the rich!
And THIS is why I keep saying :
No billionaire in the face of the earth “Deserves” that money. Multi billionaires are literally capitalism Frankensteins.
No amount of works deserves multiple billions. NONE. Multi billionaire take a at from the bottoms and the middle.
In March of 2020, the US Federal Reserve, working in coordination with the US Treasury (using taxpayer money as collateral), dumped $4.5 trillion into stock and bond markets to save the fortunes of the 1%, following the chaos of Covid. This resulted in the biggest transfer of wealth in human history. If they were to make this video today, all the charts would be more extreme as a result.
This video is 11 years old. I remember watching it way back then. Wealth inequality is FAR more extreme now. There are more up-to-date videos.
Minimum wage and union pay scales are the great equalizer. Some people have more ambition.
@@karlbmiles BS. Whatever slight increase in salary you may perhaps get will go to straight to paying your union membership fee. If the laws don't support "the cause" of unions they won't make much of a difference anyway. What's the point in going on strike if there's no legal punishment for companies firing you for doing so? Unions aren't as effective in the US as you'd might think because the legal framework simply doesn't grant enough protection to begin with.
Unions have the power to extort money from their employer, the most effective in America is the American Federation of Government Workers (AFGE). The government doesn't have to make a profit so will pay workers what they ask using tax payer money. A fourth of the top 100 richest counties in America surround Washington D.C., 18 are in Virginia and 10 are in Maryland. We now how a special class of people in America, those that promote a larger government and are handsomely paid to do so.
Corporations don't have the government's ability to "raise the debt ceiling" and suddenly have record revenues simply by voting. In a global economy, a company's headquarters can be anywhere in the world, they can acquire materials and workers anywhere in the world, and their customers are all over the world. We can get the product from anywhere to anywhere. There is no stake in the ground that forces a global company to reward only the most proximate workers who go on strike, which led to the rise of China. Why pay a U.S. worker $50 per hour when Chinese, Mexican, and Indian workers will do the same thing for $10?
@@WolfHeathen
@@karlbmilesthis is bs, inequality doesn't change with minimum Wage
there was a study here in austria about how wealthy people felt. turns out the poorest felt they were just ok, the next level felt they were middle/average income, middle income felt they are very well off, and the richest felt that their sort of middle class
The most imortant point is to understand, you don't become rich by working hard, you just have money you could invest.
Also the people that are "poor" almost work hard but have no chance to gain a decend amount of money, if part time workers don't get any bonus and get 8 or 9$ an hour.
There is a Finnish saying, "you don't get rich by working hard".
Agreed. It shows that Ryan is still under the influence of 'The American Dream' propaganda, when he says that those at the bottom can work their way up. No they can't Ryan and lottery wins aside, they never will.
@@Thurgosh_OGYeah, the only way to work up the ladder is to have a very highly educated profession like laywer or doctor, land a very well paying job (at least almost 1 million a year) and have luck investing. The more money you have, the easier it is to stay rich and become even richer.
It's crazy how in the reality graph even the 70% people are worse of, than the poorest people in the ideal graph.
It just shows that there is so much to go around but a tiny elite few hoard so much of it all that they can't even realistically use it. And then they break the law and dodge taxes on top of that which makes it harder to fund social programs that could help society, just because they want to make 200 Billion instead of 150 Billion or something.
It's kind of funny that some people still believes in the "trickle down" theory, and most don't even think of the "trickle up" idea. One of them works, one doesn't
You mean "funnel up". This is way past "trickle up"
Everybody that works for a paycheck from a corporation is benefitting from "trickle down". So quit that job, and what is your plan to buy a car, a house, send your kids to college, and pay for retirement. What are you going to do, grow tomatoes and weave baskets for sale by the highway? That's what the do in poor countries?
@@karlbmiles It should be noted that I'm not an american so I can do these things.
Have you seen house prices and average salaries in america?
The cost of school?
Paying for multiple years of your life where you'll be too old to earn what you're earning now when you can't even live longer than paycheck to paycheck right now?
In an Age where tech giants are trying to lease things to you through subscriptions, including cards and farming equipment and you believe this is to people's "benefit"?
Wake up. It's been 80 years.
America is a thin fucking line from becoming a third world country and the ironic thing is that the people would be happier for it.
@@karlbmiles Wages have nothing to do with this but anyways "trickle down" supposedly benefits society at large eventually, yet median income has remained the same for decades and wealth redistribution has worsen, that sounds like it works to you? As what is to do I dunno but this is exactly what lead to the french revolution.
@@karlbmiles This is how you make poor countries, first make the people poor, the rest follows.
The sad thing is that from my view here from the Netherlands it only got worse. America and the Americans in my eyes are the most isolated country in the world. The government let's them think right from birth they are the greatest nation on earth! Well ...guess what there is a humongous world outside America with countries and their people who are living in true freedom and having a balanced lifestyle. It makes me sad to see how the wealthiest country in the world treat their people like slaves and let them believe they are best off! They have to wake up to the truth!
Get off it. There is all of Africa and S. America and much of Asia that is so isolated as to be inconsequential. There is Europe, the U.S., China and Japan. I lived in Maastricht one year living right on the Maas where there was a sign commemorating the river crossing by the U.S. Army on their way Germany, saving your pompous asses. Why did the U.S. have to fight Germans? Our country was full of Germans, including Charles Lindbergh who argued we should fight with the Axis, not the Allies. But just like WWI we got caught up in one more European war. What is the Netherlands, former Roman Germany, member of NATO and the EU? Are you the greatest country on earth? I ran a project for you for an American company that had a factory in Maastricht. Did I help some of your ungrateful people get a long vacation? Is there a next time that America could just sacrifice the Netherlands at the start of the war to appease the Russians?
We need to bring back The 40s and 50s - 90% income tax for the highest bracket.
Read the book „the global trap“
The result of which will be less income for the treasury.
That would not make much of a difference since the truly rich do not have an income. They borrow money against their assets.
@@MrMartinNeumann We can also do a wealth tax, estate tax up to 100 percent and trabsaction tax
“If you work hard” 😂 what the hell does “work hard” even mean? Congratulations “America”, you are really f.d up 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅🦅🦅 The best country in the world..
"An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics." - Plutarch
This requires the assumption that Plutarch was actually correct.
@@WolfHeathen This requires the assumption that @WolfHeathen was actually correct.
@@WolfHeathenHello there! I think that this has been proven enough times since Plutarch's days...The detailed circumstances may have differed, but the danger has been real and mostly actualized.
I wonder if you can call america still a democracy
Capital feudalism or Neo-feudalism?
Always thought it was a constitutional Republic mixed with that corporate element
No it's an oligarchy plain and simple!
Do you listen/read Varoufakis? @@lent10
Considering the massive voter fraud that took place last POTUS election I would say NOT.
No, what you said was communism is a form of pure socialism, something which has never existed. In communism, nobody has wealth and all wealth is invested in the state. What US people describe as socialist is actually mainstream social democracy, a branch of capitalism.
I think that somewhere between the ideal and the think version you will find wealth distribution in most of Europe's countries. Maybe more closer to the think version, but still. Much better than what unregulated capitalism creates.
Not really… Europe is still of the scale…. that is far more unequal than what Americans actually think the wealth distribution is in America… just not quite as bad as the US… sorry to say.
@@sgjoni Having looked at several websites, the graph for Europe is a bit worse than the middle one but nowhere as extreme as the Actual US Chart. Almost every website confirmed that Wealth distribution was much worse in the US and the couple of sites that, in the text, tried to make out that Europe was almost as bad, didn't confirm that in the numbers and charts they showed; instead, they tried to pick out evidence of extreme wealth distribution in other countries, like the UK's poorest becoming more reliant on food banks, while ignoring the mass homelessness and poverty in the US, on a scale only see in third world nations.
@@Thurgosh_OG I completely agree. My point was just that there is still a huge wealth disparity in Europe though it is not quite as off the scale as in the US... I'm saying that, coming from one of the countries with the least extreme wealth gap distribution in the world.
Again, I am fully aware that it is in no way the same kind of extreme 3rd world poverty next to crazy wealth as you have in the US. I was shocked when I lived there for a short time over 20 years ago... it reminded me more of the disparity I saw in Thailand when I lived there 10 years earlier, than Europe. Enclaves of immense wealth walled off from the poverty outside... and I know it has only gotten worse since. I would not want to live in the US again unless I was a Billionaire... and then I'm not even sure I have the lack of conscience it would take to enjoy that life in that environment.
Now guys, think about public healthcare again. The 20% of the richest would pay in a fix percentage of their income into the healthcare pool. So you can imagine how cheap it would get for all americans. But people are against that xD
Well they are against paying for healthcare with their taxes (which would be cheaper) and for the government to negotiate drug prices with manufacturers, like practically all countries with "free" healthcare do.
The problem is that the left confuses net worth with personal wealth, or even personal income. The richest people already pay a higher percentage income tax but their net worth is everything they have invested in. It's not actual money. A billionaire doesn't actually have a billion dollars. There wouldn't be any point since that kind of money wouldn't do you any good simply rotting away in a bank account.
@@Dread_2137 The countries where medication is cheaper have social programs that cover a portion of the cost, which is paid for by taxes. I know this because I live in Sweden which has "free" health care where I need to renew my prescription every 3 months. And by "free" I of course mean a health care system where you have to pay a whole annual salary if you have a heart attack and upwards of ~$50-100k for cancer treatment, plus $40 every time you need to see a doctor and $25/day for your hospital stay despite paying the world's highest marginal tax on income.
@@WolfHeathen oh god, i understand cancer, even here treatment isn't covered fully, but having healthcare and still paying for doctor visit and hospital stay is fked up.
@@WolfHeathen What are you talking about? Do you have source to prove that you have to pay that much? I live in the neighboring country Finland, and you definitely don't pay prices like that. For example, one session of radiation therapy can be a maximum of 11,60 euros.
In USA it doesnt matter what the quality of peoples lives is, people still vote stupidly for politicians that want to keep this intact. Redistribution of wealth so that 95% have a decent life is not socialism but a more social way of capitalism where there still is free enterprise. Apparently this scares Americans
Totally agree agree although they’re no more stupid than any other population. Just actively misguided by corporate powers.
@@koschmx upholding the world order, as if that is not choosing a moral high ground. I did not speak of morality, I was only referring to the choices of voters. They just dont want to make choices that would give a lot of US citicens a better life. That is their right of course.
@@koschmx . i dont look down on anyone. If americans are happy with their lives, good for them, if such is the case.
@@koschmx I don’t think it’s got anything to do with self worth or morality but I get why you’d feel that from some. I idealised and romanticised America as a kid/teen (like many around world). Still do in many ways. Was only in learning of the political issues in my 20’s that I developed a genuine sense of concern for the average American citizen, and the west as a whole. I’m under no false conceptions/under appreciations of America’s importance in the world order. No European with half a brain would be. You don’t need to justify or explain imperialism to Europeans either, America is one of the products of European imperialism. The inability to you take constructive criticism from Europe is disappointing is all. Seems to further illustrate that your living in a bubble in which the powerful are controlling and distracting the narrative. Your point that the issues are a result of your defence spending is a good example. We have a unique perspective as outsiders with a vested interest which could be very helpful. We’ve taken many pointers in reverse with great success. That’s neither here nor there though and of course we have our own issues. What’s crucial is that if America is unable to self criticise it will descend into something dystopian and fall apart. No one in the west wants to see that happen!
@@koschmx I appreciate your perspective and you’ve made a lot of very interesting points. I think we’ve both fallen victim to straw-maning the other here to some degree though. We’re certainly far more in agreement than I’d originally realised. I get that there’s a lot Europeans who look down on Americans but I’m not one of them. They’re an embarrassment. I think you might have missed my original comment to the post;
“Totally agree although they’re no more stupid than any other population. Just actively misguided by corporate powers.”
I appreciate you have a very strong and experienced position on this. I wouldn’t assume that I don’t though as you don’t know my background either. Whilst I’ve never lived in the states I’ve visited many times over the years. My brothers wife is American, I have several American friends here and in-laws there.
Very sorry to hear of your hardship, I won’t pretend I can even imagine. When you say how did it become THEIR problem though I’m not quite sure what you mean. Do you mean Europeans should just not care and mind their own business? I may not speak for all Europeans but my personal deep interest in this has nothing to do with feeling superior in any way. I couldn’t care less about that. My point about idealising America should only tell you that for the longest time I thought American was simply superior, I had no problem in looking up to it. I was young but who cares. What I care about deeply now is the future of humanity. In particular the future of the western ideals which I hold dear. America is the leader of the western world and it’s success affects us all. Likewise the success of Western Europe affects America. That’s the reason NATO exists
This is a large generalisation but I feel there’s a fundamental difference in how Europe and America see each other which I’m certain is part of the problem. Rightly or wrongly Europe sees America as an extension of Europe. A new world bastion of western ideology which dates back to the Greeks. A second chapter of Europe if you will. America seems to see its inception almost purely in beginning with the founding fathers and the Declaration of Independence?
Not surprising America has formed its identity around the rebellion. I feel if they taught the broader context of America more though, rather than focusing on what makes it unique, it would help. You might have less of a religiosity around the constitution which seems to have become like gospel? To me it’s precisely a combination of this and the political lobbying you mentioned which are to blame for the issues currently facing the US?
Whilst America achieved great success in the 20th century, that success can be attributed to far more the constitution. The system is yet to be truly be tested but I fear it will be in this century. My hope is that it both stands strong in the global context and evolves to the benefit the average American citizen
It would be interesting to see a chart of how much each influences politics and decision making. And the consequent possibility of this wealth distribution changing or worsening.
Sure! Just remember the tax relief for the riches under (genius!!) Trump administration - do you?? At least no socialism - American dream forever!! Let's go back to 18th century! MAGA! Right?!? 😉🤪
The land of the free. Free to be rich and wealthy, free to be poor and wrecked. If you ask Americans about rich people, they always say: You just have to be better, and in the USA you can be better, no-one can stop the free Americans from being rich. Well, ...
All of this is the result of your laws, and it does not matter which of your two parties you choose. They cause this reality.
But here in Europe and Germany, the trend is not that much different, except that the states are giving citizens a little more protection and support.
Well as a Brit also suffering massive wealth differences. It is now very very noticeable how all our social services have gone way down, mostly due to massive underfunding. These consequences have originated from a far right wealth led Conservative party. (for UK Conservative replace with Republican in the USA) It seems greed and wealth result in the poor getting the rough end of the stick every time.
So I would agree, that everything that is wrong or absent in the USA is purely down to wealth greed. Your food is poor because the wealth companies can lobby your politicians into supporting poor food regulations and the same with Health care, Holidays, sickness benefits, or any benefits in general, job conditions and Education. ALL determined by RICH and WEALTHY Companies and any attempt to change the law, is meet with a full on assault from the Republicans (funded by the very same RICH Companies). As a Ordinary American, who ever you vote for you should NEVER NEVER vote for a Republican, Biden aside. Same as in the UK. There is an upswell against the Conservatives, even die hard Conservatives are looking to vote elsewhere. Our next General Election will see a massive change away from the far right.Hopefully even out the wealth graph
The right in the uk is about as far right as the Labour Party is the far left. I doubt a new party in power will spend on all social services. You could say underfunding has been going on for decades after the Blair government left admitting they spent all the money. It doesn’t help if one side just blames or fear mongers about the other. Seems to me people are averse to contributing more in tax, national insurance etc. Someone has to pitch such increases to the voters with a concrete plan for realistic spending on essential services. I currently live in Europe and the same fundamental issues exist here, too. It’s not just a UK issue. But we Brits are really world champion moaners.
Not that Labour, the main opposition in most of the UK, is any better, given that the last time they were in power, the so called Party for workers had a cabinet with only 1 non-millionaire in it. They expanded on the wealth problems created by the preceding Gov and handed off to a Tory Government that continued the decimation of our core services. We do not need either of these parties getting a majority at the next election. Vote Reform UK and get them enough seats to make a difference of the UK.
Exactly, and what is happening in the uk has been happening in oz too, we just got rid of the LNP who have robbed the country blind and stripped away rights, the damage is enormous.
When is your next General election? I hope it goes well❣️
Im so tired if this shit. In sweden since Sverigedemokraterna (SD) now are part of the deciders of things. Just a bunch of bs and scaretactics, strikt rules on how swedes must be and other nasty nazi tweets that is ruining our relations with other countrys.
They are dangerous, amazingly dumb and they only spread negativity and destroy the good things in our culture that have been built strongly over generation.
Everyone is dumbing down and its scary 👤💔
The democrats are like the British conservatives. Republicans are so much worse.
And unfortunately a lot of the people who are turning away from the Tories are voting Reform, which is *more* right wing. Not less. They're fed up with the incompetence of the Tories but they refuse to move to the left simply on principle so they're voting for those idiots instead, as if they'd be any better at running the country.
Even if you do have an average paying job in america, and manage to survive to retirement age, you can't.
They get no state pension either. That's why you see 80+ year olds, packing shopping in supermarkets.
I think they do have a seniors pension in the US but I believe it’s only in 28 states
or deliver pizzas......
@@Dr_KAP how tf pension isn't nationwide?
@@Dread_2137 no idea lol it said 28 states on google- maybe they all have something but it’s called something else.
tax the rich ☝️
@@Northerner-NotADoctor in Germany tax is determined by your income. You start paing taxes if you earn over 10k a year, then you pay around 14%. If you earn more you pay more. But there is a cap at a income of 65k, then you pay around 40%.
Wealth inequality is what appears when you tax work (income tax) instead of taxing wealth (land ownership tax, and money printing also works like tax if government owns the central bank).
@@user-ul5yh4sw7w And that's the way how they prevent you from getting rich enough to endanger the ruling class. Income tax kills both, the workers and their employers. It benefits only the land-owners and 2000-year old ruling families.
but tax the assets, not the "income" or salary.
@@Koen030NL I'm convinced that just taxing the land ownership and printing money to cause 2-3% inflation per year are two ways suitable enough for the task, of course if there is no "big government" giving tax money to rulers' families.
Filling Americans heads with "The American Dream" How's that working out for ye?
Actually the bottom has debts so they have negative wealth. you can also see this in the gini-index (ok, the gini cant show debts but it can show the equality best, by the way there is a difference between the income and the property gini)
In the second quarter of 2023, 69 percent of the total wealth in the United States was owned by the top 10 percent. In comparison, the lowest 50 percent of earners only owned 2.5 percent of the total wealth.
Earnings and wealth are only indirectly related. You can earn a lot and not accumulate wealth if you spend it all.
And that was 11 years ago nothing has gotten any better since.
Well the nature of capitalism is snowbally, because capital produces income. It’s not about hard work.
That’s why to avoid the collapse of society or, just to make it better, regulations are needed to mitigate the snowball effect from taking over.
If there was an effective and practical way to tax all inheritance above a threshold for example that would limit the concentration of wealth to one lifespan and would really not affected anyone negatively. It would also fit the American dream much better as everyone would have to earn what they have themselves. And kids of rich people would still have countless privileges gotten from their upbringing and opportunities offered to them.
By the way you mentioned the creation of small business, but most businesses are very risky to start and that’s precisely the main advantages the rich have over the poor, they get to fail and try again. The poor cannot afford to fail, the risk is not even comparable.
Tax inheritance as if it was income for the people receiving it.
@@johnclements6614 I believe in most countries, inheritance is already taxed more than regular income and donations while living are taxed as income for the beneficiaries.
It’s just very difficult to prevent tax avoidance schemes and/or people moving their assets to a different country, or just leaving the country entirely.
Corporations escape regulations faster than Houdini escaped handcuffs. Capitalism cannot be controlled.
I just want to applaud the content you are providing.
Thanks for the video, I just went into youtube and wanted to watch smth to cheer me up cause I'm sick. Perfect timing.
and people think that capitalism is the best.
this is how capitalism works by design
and most if has been done by the Mont Pelerin Society
The rich just have sooo much money to pump the people full with propaganda their whole life that they belive that shit.
But yeah, reality is, if only 5-10 of the richest guy decide to leave the US, the GDP would be suddenly like a 3rd world country i guess.
America then.
Capitalism is a virus in more ways than people think.
The propaganda on this is everywhere. It is a part of the air Americans breathes. "USA is the best country in the world. Everybody wants to emigrate there. The American Dream: work hard, succeed, and get rich."
100% Americans has chosen 20% shall own 80% of wealth.
This is not even close to accurate.
Fascinating.
Yep..living the American dream...can be SCARY at times^^
I don't mind that the founder/ceo/investor gets multiple times the pay of the average, there's hard work, a brilliant idea or high risk connected to those roles while a lot of the average just wants a fair and stable income that's enough to cover the regular bills and a few luxuries.
But the US ratios are straight up insane.
Then let him try to do it all on his own, so he can keep it all. See how far he gets.
@@CabinFever52 fair point...
On the other hand, a good leader is one that recognise that he or she can't do everything on their own.
But at the same time reward accordingly.
What we see today is by no means an accident or an ufortunate outcome of any sort. It was planed in the 70´s and has been gradually implemented since then. The video casually mentions it. Today we have the sussesfull results of what was named the Trickle-down economics. Cheers, Ryan.
He did not split up the top 1%. It is even wose because from the top 1%, 1% owns most of it.
So 0,01% owns almost twice what the top 0.99% has.
You were right, he was wrong: earning the same wage for everyone is communism and no country has actually done this despite what they say (I'm talking about you China). Most of western Europe is social democracy which is not socialism. That is: there are privately owned companies but the tax burden is more democratically spread. In socialism the state owns all companies but there are differences in pay.
Even if everyone earned the same there would be wealth inequality. Some people would save more than others and thus accumulate more wealth. Those that were older would have had more time to accumulate it so would have more (if they were savers).
Good morning Sir, Will, Thursday, Londinium................xxxx
It's taken a few years, but this isn't news to most onlookers of the USA. We know what the homeless situation looks like in the USA...perhaps even better than you do. And we also know how the 1% manipulate the economy to ensure the system doesn't change - because people are able to use their wealth to to buy themselves influence in their country's economic, social & educational systems.
We also know that your education system is structured to keep people ignorant about how the *ROW works...or even where it is!😁 (Or whether there are kangaroos in Austria.😂) But more seriously, to me as an Educator, is how people are also kept in ignorance about how the USA itself works. That all this is unknown to people who attended school (I don't mean the American definition of 'school' i.e. Uni. I mean the mandatory education one gets in Primary & secondary school.) smacks more of Communism than the right to Healthcare ever does.
It's great, & wonderful & 100% worth supporting all those who are using the internet to learn, and to open themselves up to the great mystery which is the ROW. Because, one of these days, if it isn't the adults of today who strive to make a life that's fairer, more equitable, and freer than things are right now...at least people should be able to strive for egalitarianism for their children as they grow & develop.
Keep at it, guys...you might never get to change the world - but at least you'll be able to understand it!😍
*ROW = the Rest Of the World.
What is funny is that the US didn't want an aristocracy, instead they created an ecomomic aristocracy.
that is the so called by electronic engineers "the diode society", by astrophysicists "the black hole society" and by economists "A 3rd world country"
Its important to think about the difference in wealth and income. Im not saying that wealth inequality is good, but its your income that determine how you live, not your wealth. So to me it makes sence to attack the problem from a income inequality and welfare angle.
Sweden for example has large wealth inequality but low income inequality, taxes are high for everyone and the welfare systems are well built out and service everyone.
This shift was going on long before COVID. Noam Chomsky tells of how the Ford brothers (founders of Ford Motors) set a plan in action back in the 1800s. Then look forward to its progress as Reaganomics (trickle-down economics----pay them at the top of the chain and it will trickle down to the lowest worker, according to Reagan) kicked in.
the wellfare system in finland is almost perfect
certainly not perfect. but it does get the job done.
Perfect? Like in nothing at all needs improving?
@@stevenvanhulle7242 And here it comes!
Using the lesser of the important word in the sentence just to argue!
Instead of using the most important word almost!
Let me take a guess here that you are a US citizen that like to bend everything into what was never ment!
@@karstenstormiversen4837 Why so aggressive?
"Almost" is an adverb which points to the adjective "perfect", so _IF_ there is a most important word, it will be "perfect".
But let's, for the sake of argument, take the "almost" into account. Does it mean only a little bit of fine-tuning is required to make it Really Perfect? I doubt it; I never heard of a nearly perfect system, welfare or otherwise. Everything can be improved.
And stop guessing; you're not good at it. I'm from Belgium, where nothing is perfect (even things which do work ok).
Have a nice day.
@@stevenvanhulle7242 I am not aggressive at all!
But that was an so American response to the original post,so that was that i was reacted on!
And i do believe it is hard to make a system work when as in Belgium it is hard to even vote inn a working government!
You did not have a working government for a very long time!
Thank you and have a nice evening yourself!
There is also a birthright for everyone to own a piece of land for themselves without ever paying anything for it, so no more rent, less dependence from a job. The slavery of people begun with stealing their birthright for a piece of land for them to live on.
Welcome to unregulated capitalism! And good luck!
Capitalism can't be regulated. Look at the regulations put in place after the 2009 financial crash. They've all been bulldozed. Look at the climate change agreements. They've been unwound. Capitalism tolerates no limits on its ability to grow profits.
It is a myth that people at the top end of the scale work harder than those at the bottom. For example, many people at the top end of the scale are managers with office jobs, while people at the bottom end do physical labor. People at the lower end of the scale often work 12 to 16 hours a day until their whole body aches and they are physically exhausted. They cannot afford vacations and risk losing their jobs due to illness. In contrast, managers at the top end do no physical work at all, they often sit in their office chair all day for only 7 to 9 hours, spend time holding relaxed business meetings with canapés and coffee, they take two week vacations, have paid business trips and their job is not at risk if they have to take sick leave. To me a construction worker performs a harder job than the grocery store manager but the grocery store manager earns 4-8 times as much for sure, not counting any bonus systems and other benefits. I'm pretty sure, if they'd swap jobs, the construction worker will have no problem to do what the manager did so far; he may lack the experience for being good at that job and there are a few things he first had to learn to perform certain task correctly but he's totally mentally capable of doing it and learning whatever he needs to learn, whereas most managers would quit in under a week if they had to perform the same labor their employees are doing every single day. The difference between those two is only that one had a better school education, his family had better relationships, was born and raised in a higher class, had way more money to dispose even as a teen, whereas the other one had to start working early, take every job he could get and because he was born and raised in a lower class, people would not even give him a chance.
I think 'communism' would be NO money. Equally dividing the wealth is pretty much ideal socialism, which is NOT what we have in many European countries but American media seems to be afraid of the word "social" in general so even social democracies are considered "evil"..
No money would be "slavery".
Yeah the concept of money wouldn’t exist in a pure communist country.
’slavery’ as in hospitality workers in the States. That's why 'Muricans are brainwashed into tipping for everything. Misses the point of the exercise completely.
@@Asa...S People lived before money existed dude, They weren't slaves.
@@Gatrehsthey were... the nobility had money, only farmers used their products(livestock) for exchange. I mean, we had such times, but many thousands years ago...
super interesting
I'd like to see this for other countries, such as Australia (where I am), UK and some European Countries
I'm sure you can find the info on the web...
The proportions between destitute, poor, middle class, well-to-do middle class, rich and super rich will vary quite a lot, I think, from one country to the next in Europe.
Interesting that 92% of Americans identify a comparatively flat wealth distribution as being the ideal - that is socialism. Where you get more for various talents you have but not at the total expense of fellow citizens who can still live comfortably doing lower skilled jobs. It’s also very interesting the way they talk and link hard work to wealth. Most jobs however hard you work will never make you wealthy. A great number of people are working 60+ hours a week just to keep their heads above water.
Not communism, communism doesn't use money, ppl just take as much as they need. Socialism is equal as to the money. Rich support poor.
I would like to see other countries for comparison. And yes, those with other "systems" whatever they call themselves or are called by others.
I had a look at various websites after watching this video and the US is by far the worst. Europe and the countries within it, have charts a bit worse than the middle one in the video but fell way short of the Actual US chart, though they are moving in the same direction but won't ever catch up, unless the US has a revolution or something.
It is crazy isn't it, the richest have more money that they could spend in a thousand life times
There is now something called "The Giving Pledge" where some of the richest individuals and families have pledged to give a majority of their wealth to charities and the poor and many have already started to do so, which in itself is an amazing start
It will not solve the problem in the long run for people to be able to live more stressful and valuable lives, but when the richest start to at least admit that there is a problem.. that in itself is a great first step
Perhaps in a decade or two there will be suggestions for more sustainable solutions, perhaps with an entire re-evaluation of our current economical systems 🙂
You won't remember... but I have said before: "In the US, working class people are only modern slaves. All the money earned comes to the top 10,000. Also that of the working class.
And yet, of those who claim to want that ideal, nearly all of them think the government should 'stop spending' (rather than spending into the pockets of corporations and the 1%) and that taxes and 'borrowing' from rich people, fund the economy. Complete economic ignorance allows this inequality to be maintained.
The name of the game in the states: MONEY. Nothing else matters.
The thing is there are a lot of ways/ideas to (theoretically) improve this. Yet, under the same system, you will not be able to implement them, to change it.
Perhaps some nations do mitigate things to some extent. And not just nations who were empires, but nations, who think and act as such, who defend their rights and eachother. Mine doesn't seem to be one of those nations.
And Americans vote for this.
What do that 1% do with their wealth? Accumulate more and stuff it into off shore holdings.
Humphrey Yang made wideo inspired by this recently
It's not a real surprise. For 40 years we've been funneling the country's wealth upward, and redistributing it among the billionaires and their corporations. A pittance trickles down to the millionaires. And it ends there. The country's wealth is funneled upward, and redistributed among the billionaires and their corporations.
The GOP will ensure under trump that the top end becomes even bigger !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
VOTE BLUE ALL THE WAY TO IMPROVED 'YOUR' LIFE !!!!!!!!!!!
The people in power, those who hold all the wealth and influence, play both sides. There is no difference between team red and team blue when it comes to the macroeconomic scale, it is mostly just surface level bs. Sadly "the system" is corrupt and you are by en large fucked, unless you are in the top ~10%.
Well, I guess you can only loot as long as there is something left to loot ~ and what then?
Businesses will decide to either shut up shop or move elsewhere. Look at walmart in Chicago is it I think. They were looted or had serious issues with store thieves and Walmart decided to close stores down.
Could be wrong on the city (Chicago) but it's one of the major northern US cities
Congratulations, you discovered the chasm between issues polling and political identity. There’s one party in this country that looks into issues and one that sells identity. Interestingly, the issues party has to cater to such a wide spectrum that all of us are pissed at it, thus keeping the identity party around.
Based on how communism worked in my country you have 2 classes - citizens and party members. Citizens are more or less similarly poor while the party members are the higher class that has members on lower and higher status. They don't have money per se but the higher you were, the more you were getting. My grandpa was in the party (the only one allowed to exist) and he was a director in some company. Even thought he wasn't anyone important they got their apartment relatively fast while people had to wait for years, he was able to buy a car quickly and even was able to give another car to my father which was crazy at the time to have 2 cars in family, he visited many countries as a part of his job etc. The equality of communism exists only on paper.
Still, what the US is doing is just a different kind of shit.
"All we need to do is wake up"
-every American trying to explain every problem in America from every side of politics.
That cliche needs to be banned so that people are forced to talk to each other in ways that don't fool them into thinking they're just talking _at_ each other.
Ryan, how depressing, though, not surprising. I think most of us do now about this reality, but as a whole choose not to do anything about it. Why? Because we are a country of competitors who believe that if we can just crack the nut for ourselves, we would be able to be part of the 1%. We won't! We do need to change our views. I, personally, am ready for a more European kind of Socialized Captalist Democracy, say, like Norway or even England, there are plenty to look at. When the discrepancy is this severe, Capitalism is clearly not working for us. Let's stop being afraid of labels and fix it. Peace
The whole world has always been like this.
This is just an extended version of Bernie Sanders speach
Bernie Sanders is busy promoting war and genocide.
Would be fun to look at that top 1% and see where the money come from? Did they start as top 1%? top 20% or even lower?
Did they work and make smart choices(luck to be right time and place but still), or were it just handed to them?
But hey aslong as you work 70-80 hours a week............
Something that many people overlook is WHO the wealthy people are. We often think of the handful of people in their 20s and 30s who may have done well in business or something. But wealth tends to grow with age. Many people try to save up for retirement, especially knowing that lower birth rates for half a century is leaving Social Security in a difficult situation in terms of paying out as much of a benefit as the prior generation received. Financial advisors used to recommend saving at least $1 million by retirement. With inflation, that turned into $2 million. People in their early 20s now might need to save up to $3 million by the time they retire. MOST people in their 20s don't have $1 million or more. But people who are near retirement are more likely to have much more wealth, knowing they will stop having wage income in the near future. They plan to live several years on past savings.
If the most wealthy 20% had only 1.5x as much as the people in the middle 20%, then retirees would become VERY dependent on whatever the government handed out. It makes sense for the top 20% to have much more, especially if many of those people are near retirement or in early retirement.
Granted, the top 1% tend to be entrepreneurs who did extremely well in business. This comment does not address that. But people who seek a fairly even distribution or only slightly slanted distribution fail to consider who has much of that wealth, and WHY they built it up, as they prepare to lose their wage income.
But if you are good, it will trickle down. And also talented
13:00 that's CRAZY 😭😭
It would be Interesting to see how this chart has changed since ww2 to now.
Cries in Bulgarian (the poorest country in the EU).
In my experience (70 years) knowledge is the best investment. To get rich through work you need time, perseverance, patience and, last but not least, knowledge. Gaining knowledge takes time and persistence. Education is the best investment, for you, your country and your future.
Greetings from the Black Forest
Can't do that when you don't have time for your education, because you barely can survive on your 60+ hour workweek
By "knowledge is the best investment" I meant that with better education you have more opportunities in your career. You should acquire this knowledge as early as possible. Also, as a young person (up to 25 years old) you learn easier and faster. Topic: educational systems.
Also, financial investments are better made sooner than in the short term. A good whiskey or wine also takes time. And how long did it take and how much knowledge did it take to fly to the moon.
Enough of the words. Google Translate is getting on my nerves because I didn't start learning English early enough.
Greetings from the Black Forest
If you think that health insurance is too expensive, just buy a hospital.
If you think about it, there's a lot of people with negative net worth. Wikipedia says that's about 25% of Americans so owning 0 wealth puts you in a better spot than 25% of Americans
The French had a good solution for that. Ask them about it.
11:56 So I'll preface this with the fact that I literally took the first thing I found via Google, so take this with a grain of salt, but apparently, this is basically a Medieval wealth distribution. It actually even looks a bit worse than what Google says things were like in the Middle Ages.
Being social doesn't mean communism. Social means ...for everybody a fair amount. It means to help also the ppl who have less. Being social is good and it helps the ppl.
Plato thought there was a justification for a rich man to earn up to 5× what a poor man earns. In Athens only the 6 richest citizens paid all the tax.
And they took pride in being the backbone of the polis.
Nowadays, there are repeated attempts by some rich people to be taxed more heavily, but it remains a rather exotic movement among the wealthy.
Just another memory from third grada. An anti soviet movie where the speaker told us about all those poor Russian children forced to drink fruit juices because they didn’t have coke or Pepsi. !
Oh god not fruit juice!
Equal distribution of wealth is actually socialism. Communism would be pooling all the wealth together and using it to get everyones needs satisfied equally, surpassing even the need for personal wealth, making it the ideal concept for an affluent society, where most of the reuired tasks to "keep people fed and housed" is done using automation, while people contribute to society on individual basis according to their talents and personal capabilities, be it art, science, entertainment and whatnot.
What's most disturbing is, that it is always said, that the manager, the CEO has to "shoulder the responsibility". But when push comes to shove, they are ALMOST every time the least suffering from the downfall of their company. In fact, they often make some additional money in the process.
Socialism is public ownership of the means of production and workers democratically deciding how goods are distributed. Socialism is also internationalism. It's the unity of workers across the globe.
@@cygnusx-3217 Sure (although this implements certain parts of Marxism), but I was pointing at the aspect that socialism allows for personal wealth, while communism relinquishes the control of wealth to a centralized authority (which is good if the people decide about the authority and bad if it is an autocracy) to provide for everyone. In hindsight socialism allows you to choose what to do with your wealth, while communism provides you with everything you need and (should) give you the freedom to personal fulfillment by your own choice and doing (within the confinements of the law), without fear of existential threat, extortion or wage theft.
In any case. None of the two seeks CEOs earning 400+ times more than the average employee.
12:00 It is easy, it is even worse than 11 years ago...
14:11 I think if people are THAT rich they stop caring about everything else.. people, the environment, climate change ect. 🥲 what does one even DO with all of that money??
Make more money.
biggest myth is working hard will make you rich
Supposedly the poorest people in the USA are newly qualified doctors - with very large debts. Of course their incomes will be relatively high and they are likely to end up with quite a bit of wealth.
My income is a little more than the UK median, but my wealth would put me in the top 2%. I am semi-retired and a fair bit of my wealth is in my pensions. Then there is my mortgage free home. My pay was never very high, peaking less than 2.5 times the medium (I did a lot of overtime that year). In my thirties I was in negative equity and was overdrawn a couple of times. But I had fairly frugal habits so rebuilt the savings I had lost and built them higher.
Just say you have 10 co-workers and you have each saved $100,000. Now compare what you have with 10 friends who each have assets valued at $1,000,000,000 which, is a difference of 10,000 to 1. Therefore, your financial goal in life is to, just get into the top 20 percent to 15 percent and afterward, you will be fine for life (smile...smile)
If you live in rent, it is always beneficial to buy your own place (a house, a condo, a studio apartment, etc). It is not as expensive as you think. What you now pay for rent, you then pay your mortgage each month. So your day to day finance wouldn't change that much. In some cases you might pay even less mortgage than what you paid rent previously, so your day to day finance might be even easier.
But the real money is not in day to day, it is a long time investment. Let's say you pay $1000 per month, and live in that place 5 years (so 60 months), you would get $60000 more than you would by paying rent. And it gets better, prices of houses gets more expensive as time goes on. For example if you buy a house on $250000 and live there five years, when you sell it you might get $300000 for it, so $50000 more than you paid for it. So in that 5 years you gained $60000 + $50000 = $110000 just by owning the property you live in instead of paying rent.
Of course there is more expenses living on a property you own, you must buy your own fridge, washing machine, etc, and pay the possible repairs in your own pocket. The amounts depend on how much you can do yourself and how much you have to hire somebody to do it for you. If you are a handyman, you can even buy a house in terrible condition for real cheap, and then slowly repair it room by room, and once the repairs are done sell it for profit and do the same again. You have to pay taxes for the profits of course, but still it would be hugely beneficial.
So I encourage everyone, especially poor people, to buy a property of some kind they could live in. It is pretty much the only way to poor people to save money, and eventually get out of being poor.
That's where I ran into problems. Partially I was struggling because of poor mental health, but also the building my flat was in was built in the fifties and I just couldn't afford the work. I constantly dreaded other residents saying the roof or walls needed work. My actual mortgage payment was very low. I ended up selling and moving in with elderly parents. I live in Scotland. If I lived in social housing, I would (in my current circumstances) have my rent paid by the state and repairs done by the landlord (an housing association), Private rents here are crazy, although if you're on a low income you may be able to claim state benefits depending on the landlord. People do have to factor in whether or not they can afford to maintain and modernise a property, especially if they see it as an investment. Unfortunately housing prices are now fairly high around here, and more and more people are having to return to using landlords, where our parents had affordable private housing and access to good quality social housing. I' ve been applying for social housing every week for two years but there is always someone in more urgent need. I agree with you about handymen though. In fact I tend to advise young people to get a trade, that's rewarding and well paid, and will save you money at home - then think about university later in life.
It is not always better to buy. If you only need a place for a short time then the extra costs of buying may make it not worth while. So for students, and workers on short term contracts renting is sensible.
The mortgage is likely to be less than the rent, but there are other costs to ownership such as insurance and repairs.
@@evelynwilson1566 I think your view of the past housing market is a bit skewed. I bought my first property when I was 30. I paid £64.5k. The maximum mortgage I could get was 2..5 times my income of £16k so I had to pay a 38% deposit. The mortgage rate was above 10%. I bought just before the biggest UK housing price crash on record, and sold for £39,5k At that time the UK average income for a full time worker was about £12k.
There was a time when it was easy to buy. In the years leading to the the crash of 2008 mortgages were ridiculously cheap because of the what was being done that caused the crash. That is probably what you were thinking of, but that was only for a fairly short time.
@@peterjackson4763 Sure, if you need a place for one night, then you are better off staying in a hotel (or a motel, depending on your price range). But if you go to study a 4 year degree in a university, you will know that you are staying at least that time in the city. I bet that it would be beneficial to buy then, even though you are a student. Any time between those two would be a matter of calculations whether it would be better to rent or buy. My hunch would be that within 2 year it starts to be worth to buy.
Of course It might be that a bank wouldn't lend you the money if you are just a student. But you always could get someone to back up your loan. And it is easier to pay the house with somebody else, or better yet, with several other people. For example a group of 4 friends are all going to study in the same university. They could all rent themselves a separate studio apartment, or they could all take a loan together and buy a house where they each get their own rooms (or perhaps it is a smaller house so two and two would share a bedroom, but also pay only half as much).
Yes, there are other expenditures beyond just paying mortgage when live on your own property. But even if it would be slightly more expensive day by day, you are basically paying yourself, and you would get that money back once you sell the property. Your property would also increase in value over time, which means you get more money even if everything else was equal.
@@Tyrisalthan My university course was 3 years and I stayed in college the first year.
Prices do not always rise. I bought my first property just before the biggest house price crash in UK history.
When I mention short term contracts I was thinking 6 months to a year.
Despite the advantages of buying a property there are plenty of people for who renting makes sense, and others who have no choice.
This guy fell for it ,hook ,line and sinker 😮