Why aren't Americans livid at the state of inequality in their country?

>this land of vast opportunity
>be poor
>have million dollar idea
>too poor to get rich with idea
>die
Great land.

saying who owns that wealth is very frowned upon in the states, because they happen to be americans greatest allies

>even though you're wagecucking 9-5 for $7.50 an hour you can still make it and afford a nice home before you hit 30!
no, working hard at a low wage gets you nowhere no matter how deluded you are

Attached: 1523352095716.png (205x246, 9K)

Jews

What is nepotism and networking?

something not particularly available to poor people, given that they mostly move between other poor people
but highly available to rich people

why aren't we all? we all suffer from capitalism. inequality is far from being the only of its problems.

I get called a commie, cuck, and antisemitic when I do.

>be poor
>get temporary part time wagecuck job and go to a community college
>transfer to decent university as a STEM/business major
>work hard to keep up your grades while doing part time
>graduate and get a 60k job instead of spending time on anime forum as a neet in the middle of the night
It's literally YOUR choice if you want to stay poor in America. There are plenty of options even for brainlets. You can even get a trade degree and start making 50k after a few years if you're a mega brainlet that can't into college

I love how americans always portray capitalists like drumpft as hardworking people who spent their life at uranium quarries to get their wealth

Attached: 1543649188359.jpg (570x570, 39K)

Until you get slapped with a 60,000 hospital bill.

>why do fast food workers not get paid the same as CEOs

Personally because it doesn't bother me. If a rich person is truly retarded they normally squander their inherited wealth.

For the average american there is no outrage because our poor are still comfortable, they use smart phones for God's sake. Poor Americans are often making a series of several major life choices that keeps them poor. It isn't difficult to succeed in this country. Even my mom, who earns peanuts cleaning houses, is better than most "oppressed" people earning 4x what she does. The reason? People are completely unwilling to control ANY of their impulses.

You forgot get shot and go bankrupt because health insurance company says fuck you.

Nah, its pretty cheap to get health care most people just choose not to do it.
I get health care for like 80 usd a month from my work, on the open market you can get it for like 40-50 dollars

This.
Spent too much time on int mate

>People are completely unwilling to control ANY of their impulses.

desu
>must have 6 kids beyond my means
>must buy every new thing
>must drive new car
>must buy truck instead even though not a person who needs a truck
>must vacation constantly
>must eat out several times a week

they do it to themselves

Most people dont get shot just like most people dont get cancer.

The get shot part was a joke. The insurance company saying fuck you was me being serious.

>just work 3 jobs + a 30k/year college
>we're all equal bro
>i only inherited the first million bro

the state of americans...

Don't want to be poor?
Stop working as janitors, teachers and nurses. If these jobs aren't well paid, then the country doesn't need them at the moment. That's how economy works.
Why do you expect to get paid the same for a job that isn't as necessary as, for example, programming or management?
Start a business, if you're completely stupid.

Attached: damn_these_fucks_be_dumb.jpg (239x210, 11K)

Its actually not hard to get a 60k yearly income even if you start poor.
All you have to do is work at a decent entry level job at a factory save a bit of money over the course of 2-3 years, go to community college for 2 years then to a 4 year university for the other two.
People dont though because they'd rather spend all their money on weed and takeout.

Asian Americans are a prime example of what I am talking about, highest household income in America per capita. Its not because they were born rich but because they value hard work and education.

Attached: Blakc man cigarette.jpg (321x321, 19K)

People are getting angrier. We won't be slaves to the pigs at the top for much longer.
The Red Day is dawning soon, friends.

And just what options are there for the poor in your shithole? Even the "well off" people in your country don't make as much as "poor" Americans. All this trash talk about American "inequality" is just cope to divert the attention from others who are much worse in comparison.

>Why aren't Americans livid at the state of inequality in their country?
Because inequality is only a problem when one class, the rich continue to get rich, while the poor only get poorer.

This doesnt happen in the US. All wealth classes are growing and becoming more wealthy.

>This over the top redirect
Wew lad

Attached: Banter stops.jpg (602x709, 67K)

wealth inequality is good , the more inequality means more productive people are rewarded more

it just trickles down bro simple as

Makes you think..
Based

Attached: 0827A237-7B37-464A-A7A1-E318A1288406.jpg (1200x941, 80K)

Makes me think why you would work a minimum wage job.

>actually believing this
That's how I know you're underage and never had a job.

Attached: libertarians.jpg (825x793, 140K)

well personally im constantly tired and feel like shit from the moment i wake up until i go to sleep

It's not all about absolute income Jorge.
There are social nets in place here, so that the less privileged can get a chance at education, housing and work opportunities without frittering away a quarter of their life, slaving at a fast food joint for 18 hours a day.
No one bankrupts because of health issues. No one goes from regular, full working member of society to a hobo living in a car in 1 year. The homeless people are only the ones that actively reject the help of the state.

Maybe the results aren't as direct as big moniez the bank account, but there are other indicators, such as the quality of life, social cohesion, PISA scores, effective political participation, etc. , not to mention there are no areas I need to avoid or travel through armed, because of destitute humans willing to stab me for 20€ in my wallet.

wealth inequality is the difference between when people are teenagers working as waiters to when they're in their 40s\50s most educated experienced and productive .

vast majority of the bottom 20% of people will be in the top 40% in their lifetime

lol no. Wealth inequality is when an engineer in his 40's makes 0.1% of what his employer makes, or 0.001 of what billionaires make, and that's not because he's less productive, or because his produce has a lesser value, it's because the rich manipulate markets and make their fortune off of ruining the environment and cheating their customers.

>Be born very rich.
>Invest in government bonds.
>Earn 1000x what the guy of your example does with literally zero risk and no effort at all whatsoever
I don't see why people would think there's inequality either.

his employers should make 100 times more , supply and demand nigger

You know, I actually used to think like you when I was a teen, that it's all about merit and "dude, if you are better you're richer". And then I entered the work force and realized what a shitworld we live in. The economy is much more complex than "he is better so he's richer".

Except for the person that employs him is likely in Debt.

Yeah, he's in """"""debt"""""" for tax reasons, while living in a mansion and taking vacations is Switzerland.

>if a company uses not only equity but also debt to finance investments it means they're poor
>implying ceos don't get incredible bonuses comparatively, regardless of how the company fares

Attached: 1512600411682.png (634x716, 22K)

>people born into wealth deserve to give those who weren't
Where have I heard this rhetoric before? Oh yeah das rite! Kill whitey for being born richer than me! That's how you sound like right now, like a fucking nigger

Attached: 1535318651077.jpg (988x1059, 148K)

SEETHING POORS ITT

Just remember, your neighbor might pretend to help you overthrow the wealthy, but he'll backstab you for a pittance every single time.

it's only not like that in the commie areas of the economy like all the government owned corporations

Yes I'm sure it was poor genetics and lack of work that has caused the market to rig itself. I'm sure if people just pick themselves by their bootstraps the market will fix itself.

If you could get all of a wealthy families wealth but you had to murder every single one of them would you do it? You had some magic guarantee you would not be caught and everything they had will be yours, you just have to kill them all. I'm talking filthy rich people.

If you can't reliably pass on the fruits of your labor and genius to your children who inherited your wife's genetic stupidity what is the point?

Anyone who seriously answers yes to this is subhuman

Oy vey, wealth equality is anti-semitic!

Attached: 1536432775091.jpg (600x600, 28K)

if you can't make a decent living in america just give up, everything is set up for you to succeed. good infrastructure, rule of law. non discrimination rules in the workplace. even third worlder spics with 0 education make enough to send back to their family on top of wages that keep them off the street. if you want it go get it, but no one's gonna carry you

>it had not been clear to us that these people, who start wars in the Third World and destroy entire populations, are dumbfounded when violence faces them in their own house.

If you live in the U.S and made at least the median income (56,516) you'd be above the top 1%

Attached: rich.jpg (1130x517, 53K)

Yes, in my opinion the goal of society is to provide the means for conducting a decent and honest life to everybody.
Seeing people working multiple jobs still struggling to get by while the people at the top can live comfortably is unjust.
When poor people have to dig through trash to feed themselves, or die because they can't afford to go to a doctor as it happens in America, is a failure of society as a whole.

>people born into wealth deserve to give those who weren't
Yes I'm ok whit stripping people of their excessive privileges for the betterment of society as a whole.
Surely you can't believe that the status quo has to be enforced no matter what.
Like people that were born owning slaves were forced to give up that right a to make society better. Feudal landlords had their powers limited.
Now if you agree with the fact that sometimes we need to change society somewhat, infringing the right people had previously, to make it more liveable and decent for everybody is just a matter of how much.

Yes

I assume it's referring to the US top 1% because nowhere else do Jews control this much wealth.

if they were jewish yes

>The people born before you rigged the market cause it's the only sensible thing to do in that position
>People are just too dumb and lazy to have decent lives

Pick one.

Attached: 1545745691131.jpg (598x714, 46K)

They aren't mutually exclusive. Me making sure my children have a good start doesn't mean yours are unable to succeed. Do all people start on a level playing field? No. Can people of low means achieve more than their parents? Yes. Can people of means fall from grace compared to their parents? Yes.

Stop being so dichotomous and retarded. If you apply yourself at all in the US you end up more comfortable than literally 99% of the world.

>Do all people start on a level playing field? No
why dont you wanna level it though

There's a difference between accruing wealth for your family and using a position of power to actively make it more difficult for other people to live by rigging the system in favor of you and your family. You're dumb.

Obviously because I care more about my children than other people's children. This urge drives humanity to succeed. Without the ability to think one's wealth does something after death most people wouldn't amount to much.

Jews in the US vote dem more than any other group, though.

Bullshit. Nobody here cares about baseball.
^this

I actively promote the fiscal success of any of my employees who show talent and work ethic. I'm not rigging anything and my intelligence isn't threatened by someone on an Indian street shitting site calling me dumb.

>I actively promote the fiscal success of any of my employees
a filthy jew capitalist! get him!

story of my life. Now that I'm a grown man and I experienced the shittiness of life, I can guarantee that besides sheer luck, nothing will lift you out of poverty.

This rhetoric of "werk hard and bee riech you lazy cunt" is just bullshit designed to keep your head down.

not him but this is quite understandable
the poor will obviously do everything in their (little) power to oppose this tho, and that's understandable too

>I'm not rigging anything

Then why did you even reply to my posts you dumb mongoloid. I'm talking about people who rig the market, I've said it several times and yet you reply to me with some inane bullshit about your children.

Attached: 8945F6BB-A549-4E0C-B1A7-9E062F6A1D8E.jpg (749x1014, 88K)

Wanting to provide for your children and all that is admirable.
Wanting to keep your high social status, in a way that you yourself admit is unjust (playing field not level), is understandable from an individualistic stand point but cannot be moral.
It's like saying that might equals right, which can be true in practice but it is obviously not moral. With that logic you'd have to agree that when bolsheviks murdered the romanov family not only they were doing something reasonable but they were doing something moral and just. They were only ensuring the betterment of their chances of success after all.

>cannot be moral
limiting someone's potential in name of equality is also immoral tho
would be like training all the kids the same trying to get all for olimpic games instead of focusing with the ones that are actually talented
equal starting ground is good in theory but leads to a lot of mediocre trash half assing it and basically ruining it for everyone
(talking about our contest, where even a loser can live decently, you dont have to go hobo)

>It's like saying that might equals right

No it really isn't. Giving my children a house when I die is not even categorically the same as initiating force to achieve an objective. Any attempt to equivocate the passing on of private property with violence is flawed reasoning, unless that property was acquired through violent means. Which my property was not.

it's a bad or even worse in Switzerland tho

Attached: file.png (1181x587, 279K)

when calls to property systematically deprive people of their access to the means to live, property is indistinguishable from violence

The same could probably be said of med countries in the EU.

>be american
>criminals in prison get free healthcare
>but regular citizens on the street don't

Attached: goldenlel2.jpg (1462x1462, 162K)

So, Alaska goes back to Russia then?

I'm unsure what you meant here, but I really don't think you can assemble a line of logic that makes property indistinguishable from violence.

What was the unequal playing field we were talking about?
Wealth inequality, a wealth inequality so important people die of preventable disease if they don't have as much money.
What's preventing people form accessing that wealth? Physical violence administered by the police

Also nobody wants to forbid you to give your house to your child, people are against people who have a tremendous amount of wealth, the poorest half of the world has as much wealth as 6 guys.
With like 10 billion usd you can lift a country out of poverty, you can house the homeless. And that are many people who hoard that kind of wealth by themselves.

I don't believe in equality

Defensive violence is not wrong. To say that it is leaves you with a world view that makes little sense.

i no longer make arguments if they are longer than two lines, sorry. it's too much effort.
the thief defends what he usurped.

If he stole it, then he clearly was the initiator of the use of force. I admit my phrase could have been more detailed, but the phrase becomes really complicated and annoying when trying to cover it all.

Something like "The initiation of force (violence) is wrong, but the use of violence in defense is not." is still valid as the thief obviously violated the precept by using the force in the first place.

How is it defensive though?
You admitted that you want the playing field not leveled as to keep your privileges. You haven't challenged me when I said that was unjust. So we can agree that the injustice lies in the disparity of wealth.
Wanting to keep something you obtained not rightfully, by force can't be regarded as defensive.

oh, the usurper doesn't have to resort to violence himself. the police, which always rises in defence of the economic system, does it for him. which is probably why you don't see it as an initiation of violence.

That's fine but what level of inequality becomes too much for you? What's too little?

To answer your baseline question it's defensive because someone is first using force against someone when they steal their property. The defense of said property is a moral action, as defending one's person and belongings from the aggression of others is the natural right of any human being.

You either respect the existence of private property as a moral concept or you do not.

In a system where there is not the moral correctness of defending what one owns, there is little point in arguing what is and is not "just".

In the end no system is going to be just from every single standpoint. Philosophy does not grant us such a system. What matters is what you prioritize as being the most important precept. For me the belief that "The initiation of aggression against others and their property is wrong" is the most important and useful fundamental axiom. In this system I seek to minimize literal violence. It seems to me like you probably prioritize equality over this.

If everyone in society does not willingly give up their possessions for everything to be redistributed evenly, violence would have to be used to achieve the "level playing field" you reference. The idea of absolute equality is a myth that has never existed in human or animal history - and likely never will. I am more concerned with running a moral society that operates in the world in which we exist. And in our world people want to own things and have the right to defend them. There are many people who would never willingly give up their possessions for this magical moment of redistribution. As a result, there would need to be violence employed to force them to do it. I cannot, in good conscience, say that their act of defense of their property in this moment would be wrong. I think saying whoever initiates force is in the wrong is a clean way of thinking of things.

As such there is functionally no moral way of achieving a just (equitable) society outside of everyone willingly agreeing to it.

is this a crypto commie thread ?

Attached: 1545747022781.png (713x611, 26K)

how funny it is that in that analysis you should not have any recourse to how that wealth was accumulated in the first place - theft, supported by state violence.
but i said i will make no arguments. so how about a joke? "Did you know that our world is full of trouble? the rich die of obesity - the poor of malnutrition. how unfortunate humanity is!"

I believe if you accrue wealth through the initiation of violence you are wrong to do so, as you are the first person to use the violence (non defensive). It doesn't matter to me if you do this yourself, or if you use a third party to do the violence/aggression for you - it would still be wrong.

I literally couldn't offer any more recourse in that analysis because I was at the character limit. If you have curiosity about every little exception you can think of, go read about the non-aggression principle. I assure you it is logically sound and better people than both have us have tried to poke holes in it and failed.