Comments about ‘Americans divided: Is this land one of 'haves' and 'have-nots'?’

Although there are many reasons for the haves v. the have-nots, one of those reasons is how hard someone is willing to work. If some of the haves were willing to work as hard as I did receiving an education and then putting in the long hours the first 15-20 years of their career they would have moved into the haves category. Few of the haves got there without hard, hard work. Many Americans nowadays believe that 40 hours a week is too much.

@ClarkKent: Go tell the single mom holding down two jobs to support her kids that she's not working hard enough. That's my gripe with the rich in this nation, they think everyone else is simply being lazy.

Competition is good for the winners and the losers. Both sides of the spectrum are better off because they both put in more effort than if they weren't competing. A rising tide lifts all boats, it couldn't be truer. Most of us, even the have nots, are better off then we were 20 years ago. Big deal if someone has more than I do, it doesn't hurt me any, because I have more than I had before. In that sense, income inequality actually helps everyone.

It takes two things to be successful in this country--hard work and luck. Many of the less fortunate people are simply down on their luck. However, many less fortunate people are missing the hard work component.

It's unfortunate, but any system worth having will have people who aren't successful because of bad luck. Take away the ability for failure, and you also take away the ability to succeed.

Sounds like someone should write a manifesto of the changes they want to change the inequality and power. Oh, wait..someone already did?

screenname: you said, " Take away the ability for failure, and you also take away the ability to succeed."

I agree 100%. It should be pointed out that many of those who are among the wealthiest Americans have gained and lost fortunes several times. My own father-in-law gained a fortune building houses in Alaska in the 60's. Then he when bust. He moved his family to Hawaii and gained another fortune. Then he went bust when going through a divorce. Again, he gained a slough of money through buying old houses and reconstructing them. He is doing OK now, but when he was down he was very down (financially).

Eliminating failure from the system is a disservice to everyone because it eliminates the motivation of being successful.

Clark, I am 71 years old. I worked hard all my life starting at age 14. I never collected unemployment or any other kind of "welfare." Yet I have two children who were forced into bankruptcy when illness hit and they could no longer afford health insurance after their companies hit them with huge increases for having "chronic illnesses." (We can thank Orrin Hatch and Jon Kyle for that -- but that's another story.)

One of my children had been a police officer injured on the job. She opened a small business but lost it when, because of lack of health coverage, she couldn't keep it open.

Although we American are incredibly blessed by comparison with some others in the world, many of us are watching helplessly as our 401 savings dry up or we lose our homes to forces beyond our control. Not necessarily because we overreached on our mortgages, but because we lost jobs after powerful people and entities took even the privilege of work away from us.

I fully support OWS and wish them great success.

The "Haves" have benefited from 30 years of debt spending.

The new generation is now feeling the consequences of our debts.

DeltaFoxtrot | 9:57 a.m. Oct. 28, 2011
West Valley, UT
@ClarkKent: Go tell the single mom holding down two jobs to support her kids that she's not working hard enough. That's my gripe with the rich in this nation, they think everyone else is simply being lazy.

Delta: So did you choose to not read the first 2 lines on my post or do you just choose to be argumentative.

Here is my real peeve about this Wall street stuff. As Americans, we've got it really good by comparison to the majority of the world's population. Even our poorest people have resources available to them -- through government, charity, and other means -- to relieve their financial misery, if they seek it.

So my peeve then is: are those who are protesting willing to share what they have with those who are less fortunate? All evidence that I've seen in news reports and other sources suggests they are not. In other words, while condemning the rich for being greedy, they themselves are just as guilty of greed with the added factor of coveting (should I throw a tantrum because I don't have it as good as Bill Gates?) what someone else has.

Unlike the tea party that was/is attempting to reign in uncontrolled/unaccountable federal spending which ultimately effects every American, these Wall street protesters appear only concerned about themselves.

This article has as much value as an article describing a snowmobile trip to the south pole and never talking about ice and snow. This article almost completely ignored a very major fact about money and wages..

INFLATION

According to the CPI Inflation Calculator, 10,000 1979 dollars are equal to $28,560 in 2007.

If the middle class income went up about 40 percent and inflation was up about 180 percent, then they fell behind.

If the bottom 20 percent had an income increase of only 18 percent and inflation was up about 180 percent, then they really fell behind. $11,800 in the year 2007 will not do what $10,000 did in 1970.

The fact that so many identify themselves as "haves" has less to do with increasing material wealth than it does with the honorability of the American people. We recognize ourselves as "haves"

if we have a roof over our heads
if we didn't go to bed hungry last night
if our children are fed, clothed, educated, and healthy
if we are physically and mentally healthy
if we have jobs and are able to work

The majority of us recognize that although we struggle to maintain the status quo, things could be so much worse - as it is for many of our friends and neighbors.

One thing that these youngn's and rich haters, don't realize is that the government will take from them and be rich themselves just as much as corporations.

If you take the capitalism route you at least have a shot of being well off as well.

If the government takes over everything you have no shot at all.

the Obama plan - TAKE from the have's and GIVE to the have not's. Sound familiar? Look no further than socialist Europe and Cuba.

I can't wait to get some of that gravy from the rich folks! Wealth redistribution - now that is the America founded by Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, etc... OR NOT!!

Sorry, but there is no "gap." Income is a continuous spectrum, with people at every level.

So the wealthy get wealthier, so what? They do not take money away from others; there is no "pie." So why do you care?

The article failed to point out that EVERYONE has gotten wealthier over the past several decades. The spectrum has gotten wider, and it has also shifted upward.

Thinkin Man @ 12:17 p.m.

Please read my 11:25 a.m. post and think some about inflation and how it impacts purchasing power. Some groups have fallen behind. $10,000 in 1979 dollars requires more than $25,000 in 2007. The working poor and middle class have less purchasing power, but yes they have more dollars.

What would you think of an article that described a snowmobile trip to the South Pole and did not mention snow and ice. This article is in that class.

William Gronberg -

Notice the caption on the graph in the story--

"Percentage change in income since 1979, adjusted for inflation"

This percentage increase is after the effects of inflation are taken out. Do you really think that the middle class has less buying power than they did in the late 70s? How many $500 gadgets did the middle class buy back then compared to now? How many thousand dollar computers and hundred dollar phones for each member of the family did they have?

Practically everyone in the country is significantly better off than they were 30 years ago. Why is it so bad that one group did much better than another?

About the picture of the girl holding the sign that says the poor will have nothing left to eat but the rich... Does anyone else get the image of a horde of zombies coming to eat people?

Stock up on your chainsaws and ammo people!!! =D The zombies are coming!!!
Haha.

screenname @ 12:45 p.m.

I am capable of admitting that I am NOT correct. I did not see the small print with the graph that says "Percent change in income since 1979, adjusted for inflation". I did see the large print concerning "after-tax income".

However, the article does not mention anywhere any adjustment for inflation. My concentration was on the content of the article and I missed the small print with the graph.

I lack all knowledge about everything. I fall short of the qualities of a few of our fellow posters.

I hope I have not already used up my allotment of posts.