92% of Americans prefer Sweden's "socialistic" economic system

Basically Americans believe that we are treated fairly in regards to the way wealth is being distributed, we are wrong. The top 20 percent of U.S. households own 84% of the countries net worth. STOP and let that sink in.

This has been done with an un-holy alliance of corps and government that has lead to stagnation of wages since the 1980's when union busting became the rage. Click on the link below and read the short article. The more I read hard studies/pdf's the more convinced that we are headed for disaster.

Whether you agree with the study, 84% owned by the top 20% is going to lead to an upper class and a lower class. There are peaceful ways to resolve these issues. Anti-trust, returning to a 6% share of GDP derived from corporate taxes in 1947 instead of the 2.8% we have now, unions, and tariffs. This means elected officials need to work for us, meaning the electorate. (stop laughing) Is it a reversible trend?

participants were shown three unlabeled pie charts meant to depict possible wealth distributions: one that was totally equal; one based on Sweden’s income distribution, which is highly egalitarian; and one based on the U.S. wealth distribution, which is wildly skewed toward the rich. Then, the subjects were told to pick where they would like to live, assuming they would be randomly assigned to a spot on the economic ladder. With their imaginary fate up to chance, 92 percent of Americans opted for Sweden’s pie chart over the United States.

STORY
Link< br />
PDF
www.people.hbs.edu...

a reply to: seasonal

So the gist is that the middle class is disappearing and the "upper class" is amassing wealth and resources, while the lower class is getting less and less, correct?

I'd say that is 100% correct.

a reply to: FamCore

And the middle class disappears into the poor, not the upper class.

If only the USA had the population size and demographics of Sweden we'd be all set. But we don't, so it doesn't mean jack squat.

I like the color of my neighbors lawn better, but he has 1/4 acre and I have 4 acres.

a reply to: jjkenobi

Are you saying the top 20% should own 80% of the countries net worth because we have too many different people with yards that are too big full of dead grass?

a reply to: seasonal

Slate is a left wing socialist propaganda mouthpiece.

Anything they post should be taken with a large amount of salt.


I find it hard to believe 92% of Americans agree on anything.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: jjkenobi

Are you saying the top 20% should own 80% of the countries net worth because we have too many different people with yards that are too big full of dead grass?

Generally speaking, 20% of people tend to produce 80% of everything. There is something called the 80/20 rule. For example, in business, usually 20% of your customers account for 80% of your revenue/profit. In sales forces, 20% of the sales guys usually generate 80% of the sales.

In life, 20% of the people will have 80% of the wealth.

There is nothing inherently wrong with this... Please explain how your neighbor's net worth affects you personally. It doesn't other than making you jealous.

There will always be people who are more successful than others. Always. Some work harder. Some are lucky. Regardless of the reason, there will never be equity.

I'd love for one of you to tell us when we ever had "income equality". It simply doesn't exist because it is an arbitrary measure.

That is like 9 starving wolves and a single sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Golly gee, should I vote to have more of other peoples money for free legally or not?

I'll just leave this here...
Sweden leads the way in dumping socialism

Have any of you actually talked to people from Sweden?
Well I have and most are not very happy with their social programs, and have been moving back to a capitalist model over the last few years.
Collective socialism doesn't work!

a reply to: Edumakated

Prove it. Prove your 20% make 80 of the production ratio.

Keep in mind every single person no matter how small that takes part in the production of something are a part of it.

Some dude overseeing 50 people producing does not mean he gets credit for all their work combined while they only get credit for their individual part. Each and every person involved in the production of something are responsible for it's production.

So your telling me, 80% of the population is sitting on their ass not contributing, while 20% do all the heavy lifting.

Prove it.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
That is like 9 starving wolves and a single sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Not really. The study is posted, and it would appear that it was like polling 8 sheep and 2 starving wolves (10) and still getting 9 equal responses as for what to have for dinner (90%). Apparently, more than one sheep is interested in meat?

There was very little variation in responses from the respondents in the 80% versus the respondents in the 20%.

The flaw in the study is that it does not explain what would be required to transition from one of these systems to the other. It is easy to say, "yea, I want that," when there is no description as to how one would actually get it.

a reply to: FamCore

Si Senor..

"They" are trying to make "Haves" out of "Have Nots" and 'they' are using our $$$ to do it.. As was noted, "They" will NEVER use their own $$$ but will take/make a percentage on the re-distribution..

In 2008 it was the automakers turn at the trough. The trough is a never-ending supply of the middle's $$$.
After the automakers proved that although they were BIG they weren't too big that they couldn't fail. After 'they' were shown the fault of their ways, most of the top guys received raises of their wages and "bonuses"..

Then it was the Banks and Money lenders turn.. They also lost their a$$e$ but they too received large 'bonuses' Remember the MorganStanley™ debacle where they under-reported their losses by the tune of $4Billion or twice as much as The Clinton Fraudation™ took in from the Saudi Royals. The Lady in charge of the New York office made $132M during the time of Her tenure when they LOST that $4B thanks to the "London Whale"..

Then it was the Insurance Cabals turn at The Trough and this boondoggle was better known as "Affordable Healthcare". How else do You explain former Insurance company beancounters as the authors of such a scheme?

a reply to: Puppylove

Go take any intro business course. The following link gives plenty of examples...

Pareto Principle

a reply to: JAY1980

No I haven't talked to anyone from Sweden, but I have talked to many low income people in the US. They can't afford medical care (this now leads into middle class), food, rent, utilities. Are you aware of wage stagnation since the 1980's for almost everyone, well except the CEOs.

The way they conducted this is pretty bias right from the start. Basically they are asking if you do not have to work for money, and it's handed to you with you not doing anything, how would that distribution look.

originally posted by: watchitburn

I find it hard to believe 92% of Americans agree on anything.

95% of Americans would agree with you on that.

I doubt 92% of Americans would understand Sweden's socialistic system.

This idea of legislating equality never works.

Equal opportunities,not equal outcomes.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

It's easy, ask 100 Americans if they'd be willing to pay 67% of their income to taxes. I guarantee 90%+ would say F that.

a reply to: Edumakated

Having read that, I'm firmly in the belief that it does not apply in terms of productivity in a way that's reasonable to determine wealth earned.

Using it in this way is putting way too much emphasis on the initial cause while ignoring the effort involved in creating the effect.

An example of how it's being used and why doing so is effed up ten ways to sunday.

Susan looks down at her paper, oh hey look, people are looking to by Widgets, ok hey Frank, George, Peter, Rosy and Shakira have your factories fire up the workers. We need to get our Widgets out so we can compete with Widget kings our competitors.

Ok boss!!! they say and fire up their factories. Each putting their supervisors in motion to get their workers to start production on the parts.

Now Widget Kings the competitor of Susan's company is doing the same thing, so are other competitors.

Now here's how the math you're using is determining who's producing.

Susan's and her competitor companies decision resulted in their people starting their factories up, who then directed their supervisors to get their workers to build widgets.

It's saying that since Susan's action, deciding to produce more widgets, results in her underling starting up the factories, and then the supervisors doing their part to get their workers to create the widgets. She deserves credit for the production of all the widgets her company makes, while each of her factory owners deserve for the production of the widgets built in their factory, and then supervisors, ect down the line til we get to workers at the bottom. Who do the actual making of said Widgets.

Same is true for the other company.

Now using this totally screwed method of determining worth.

20% is responsible for 80% of production, because it's giving Susan and her competitors full credit for the production of everyone under their command simply because their action of deciding it needed to be done resulting in the effect of everyone under them down the chain producing all the companies widgets.

So essentially why this is effed up. Because it puts all the focus on effect from action, it's saying Susan saying hey guys make widgets is worth most of the profit, despite the people at the bottom being the only ones actually doing the physical production.

The people doing the actual work are getting screwed up the ass, not because they aren't working or producing but because someone else told them to work and is getting credit for everything they produce without actually doing it, while they are only getting credit for what they produce, which they are actually physically doing.

So yes, your 20 / 80% thing is true when looking at cause and effect, but total BS when you look at it in terms of effort taken to actually create said production. The workers, which encompass the 80% are the ones putting in the most effort to produce, but you want them to get almost nothing for it because Susan runs the company and tells them what to do at the very top.

I'm sorry but I'm not going to discount the actual work done by the 80% because of semantic BS.

a reply to: avgguy

I don't know the % we pay including medical, but some research is needed for an accurate statement.