"trickle down theory" seems obviously correct to me. Like, if a person has lots of money, it's stupid to sit on it - they invest it, found businesses, hire people, buy things - all of which are putting money back into lower tiers of the economy to me. Am I missing something big?
-
-
Not the goal per se. So the problem is that with that inequality lots of people’s lives have not gotten better. There’s more debt, it’s more difficult to buy a home, wage growth hasn’t tracked with inflation, education and healthcare are much more expensive.
-
sounds like
@jbtiv is arguing that if we measure increase in quality of life of lower classes, we must compare that to the expansion of wealth in higher classes. ie, praising RELATIVE increase in quality of life means nothing if elites r benefiting at exponentially greater rate - Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
So if income inequality existed in a vacuum it would not matter. I think most would agree if everyone was doing SO much better that most people had retirement, home ownership, savings, and a stable job that covered this and their basic needs, we wouldn’t sweat the ultrarich much.
-
You can’t measure if trickle down is working that way. You are assuming often financially illiterate people make sound financial decisions and they don’t. It is sad but there is often a reason poor people are poor.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.