wealth inequality

[Cthulhu 2020]

This is just amazing to watch. So, by your estimation, cronyism is caused by and needs to be fixed by the public? It's not at all a government issue to you? You are a huge supporter of the left yet, you don't realize that a powerful and corrupt government is the cause of cronyism? So, your solution to a corrupt and powerful government is to make it more powerful?

This is hilarious. For as much as the people on the right bang the drums of smaller government, the people they elect to office have been putting in far bigger government than the left has ever done. More spending, more power, more infringement of rights.

- - - Updated - - -

That's all well and fine but, we weren't talking about minimum wage. I personally believe that minimum wage keeps average wage down, not up, but that's just me. For example, the countries with the highest low pay (I know its a shitty way to put it), don't even have a minimum wage, they just have strong union presence.

But again, you guys just will not address the obvious issue. The fact is, employers have always wanted to pay the least amount possible. The balance to that is that the worker wants more money, and the competing employer needs more workers. The balance is the issue, not the hearts and minds of the employers. Workers are at a negotiating table with no chips. The solution is not to force the employer to hand over some chips, the solution is to correct the imbalance. There are many ways to correct the imbalance but, cronyism, increased costs to business, increased taxation (removal of money from the normal economy), etc. None of those things sound superior to fixing the issue than simply creating a pro-business environment where the economy can grow faster than the birth rate. Certainly the Obama GDP is not a solution to any economic woes, that is for certain.

And yet the right has all but dismantled unions. The elite on the right have convinced their constituents that unions hurt their wages, and yet you yourself have just said what I tell every anti unionite. Strong union power has helped wages. People in this very thread worshipping the elite, shaming those who want to fix it, speak the most loudly against workers coming together and collectively bargaining. They hate unions.

The left has always pushed for stronger union presence.

[May90]

If you are demanding to take money from someone against their will, and give it to others, that sure sounds a bit like oppression. You are placing an unnecessary and undue burden upon them. Now, you may be fine with that, because you deem the target of your oppression to be deserving of it, but that does not change what you are doing. You want to take away someone else's freedom (in this case, their money), because you don't think they deserve it. You think someone else deserves it more.

How is that any different than if a company uses the government to take your money from you, because they feel they deserve it more?

It is not about who deserves what, it is about a bigger principle: a nation is better off when everybody has a decent quality of life, than when one part of the population is bathing in gold and the other barely has enough to eat. You can't please everyone: there is only a limited wealth in a country, and everyone wants as much of it as possible. Some people would argue that it is better to make rich a bit less rich, than to let the poor be poor.

Of course, this reasoning (take away from the rich and give to the poor) happens to have caused the worst regimes in history, such as North Korean... But that wasn't the only cause, nor does it always have to cause it.

Its incorect to utilize is that the mean wage, since it's affected by the extreme values. With the Kaitz you are trying to take into consideration wage distribution and the median is more effective at that
It's on the papers I sent you.

With manual wealth redistribution, you can smooth the extreme values; this won't change the average wage, but it will increase the median wage.

For example, suppose we have 1000 people earning $1,000/m each and 1 person earning $1,000,000/m. The average wage is $2,000/m, the median is $1,000/m. Let's now take $500,000/m from the latter person and distribute it equally among the rest; we will have 1000 people earning $1,500/m and one person earning $500,000/m. The average is still the same, it is $2,000/m; but the median now is $1,500/m.

[oxymoronic]

It used to be that the strongest economy in the world could boast the best quality of life for its workers, and the highest wages; by your own numbers, that's not true.

still wondering when/where this was happening. either admit you was wrong or look foolish and childish forever.

- - - Updated - - -

Increasing the amount spent on wages is no different than increasing the amount spent on office supplies. It's a cost of doing business. It is not "taking the company's money".

/facepalm

what reality is this guy living in? all costs of doing business takes the company's money and affects the profit made.

- - - Updated - - -

and rothchilds are 1000x more than rockerfeller :/

just think of rockerfeller as the lanisters in their prime
and rothchilds as the iron bank

1man vs many... he was worth an estimated 600billion at one time. we have nothing like that today, nothing.

[Machismo]

It is not about who deserves what, it is about a bigger principle: a nation is better off when everybody has a decent quality of life, than when one part of the population is bathing in gold and the other barely has enough to eat. You can't please everyone: there is only a limited wealth in a country, and everyone wants as much of it as possible. Some people would argue that it is better to make rich a bit less rich, than to let the poor be poor.

Of course, this reasoning (take away from the rich and give to the poor) happens to have caused the worst regimes in history, such as North Korean... But that wasn't the only cause, nor does it always have to cause it.


With manual wealth redistribution, you can smooth the extreme values; this won't change the average wage, but it will increase the median wage.

For example, suppose we have 1000 people earning $1,000/m each and 1 person earning $1,000,000/m. The average wage is $2,000/m, the median is $1,000/m. Let's now take $500,000/m from the latter person and distribute it equally among the rest; we will have 1000 people earning $1,500/m and one person earning $500,000/m. The average is still the same, it is $2,000/m; but the median now is $1,500/m.

I'd prefer to stand by a principle of freedom, as opposed to what some may deem to be more fair. Since I do not support the corporatism that has gone on, where companies used the government to push all sorts of prohibitive legislation, I'm not going to support it when the populists try and do the same.

[Turtlewithnoshell]

Absolutely.

I see no reason for the government to get involved in a voluntary agreement between two willing entities.

totally unrelated
This reminds me of the scientology "prisons" where people willingly lived in horrible conditions and committed horrifying acts to stay in the church and prove their devotion. There was a guy whos job was to lick the bathroom floor clean daily.
The FBI came to rescue them all and they all refused to leave and said they wanted to be there.

[oxymoronic]

And the wealth inequality is largely between the poorest (at minimum wage) and the wealthy. Hence why the minimum wage is absolutely relevant.



Depends on the era. Than the early '30s? No. Because we implemented a suit of laws, like minimum wage, to curtail employer abuse of their employees.

Than the '60s? Absolutely, if we focus on averages and ignore the social injustices of that era, which aren't really relevant to this question.

he forgets the war that made it all possible. guess we should get in another huge conflict so wages can go up with the few remaining men.

[Cthulhu 2020]

totally unrelated
This reminds me of the scientology "prisons" where people willingly lived in horrible conditions and committed horrifying acts to stay in the church and prove their devotion. There was a guy whos job was to lick the bathroom floor clean daily.
The FBI came to rescue them all and they all refused to leave and said they wanted to be there.

This is what the wealth worship from the right reminds me of. They continue to worship the elite and the shit they hand down to their religiously devout. "Omg why do you want to take their money!" The money that they legislated to themselves.

[Machismo]

totally unrelated
This reminds me of the scientology "prisons" where people willingly lived in horrible conditions and committed horrifying acts to stay in the church and prove their devotion. There was a guy whos job was to lick the bathroom floor clean daily.
The FBI came to rescue them all and they all refused to leave and said they wanted to be there.

It's not unrelated at all. I was asked if I opposed the forced increase of the minimum wage, and I stated exactly why I opposed it.

I knew a girl in the Marines who liked to get pissed on by guys. Whatever floated her boat, I guess.

- - - Updated - - -

This is what the wealth worship from the right reminds me of. They continue to worship the elite and the shit they hand down to their religiously devout. "Omg why do you want to take their money!" The money that they legislated to themselves.

You haven't bothered to show where I actually supported crony capitalism. Let me know when you find where I did.

[Turtlewithnoshell]

This is what the wealth worship from the right reminds me of. They continue to worship the elite and the shit they hand down to their religiously devout. "Omg why do you want to take their money!" The money that they legislated to themselves.

I see what you're saying but I don't think it's worship. I think it's more of a respect for the wealth. To some extent I agree with respecting the wealthy and rich business men. It takes a lot to get to that point, even if it was parents of parents that set you up for it.
However, there's a lot of tax evasion and shady stuff that goes on to avoid paying taxes, and that I'm against for usre.

[Captain N]

I see what you're saying but I don't think it's worship. I think it's more of a respect for the wealth. To some extent I agree with respecting the wealthy and rich business men. It takes a lot to get to that point, even if it was parents of parents that set you up for it.
However, there's a lot of tax evasion and shady stuff that goes on to avoid paying taxes, and that I'm against for usre.

The problem is the worship/respect is only for those at the very top of the spectrum. Those very same people have a great deal of animosity towards those in the income bracket just ahead of their own. That hatred is doubled if said person is also a member of a union. Their logic is backwards...People need to work hard, but only if they do it as an individual because they'll probably benefit more through collective bargaining.

[May90]

I'd prefer to stand by a principle of freedom, as opposed to what some may deem to be more fair. Since I do not support the corporatism that has gone on, where companies used the government to push all sorts of prohibitive legislation, I'm not going to support it when the populists try and do the same.

Freedom is a tricky concept. When, for example, a person has to do a job they hate for small wages, because all other positions in their small town are already taken and they need to eat something - is that person really free? Their circumstances can be exploited by others, which essentially is the same as if the government exploited them - the latter would be called totalitarianism though.

The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that perfectly free market isn't all that free, since one of the types of freedom it grants is a freedom to exploit others' basic needs, which is essentially an oppression. Freedom of oppression isn't really a freedom, is it?

The way I see it, market regulations are essentially the same as law system. You could say that law system is oppressive, because it limits people's freedoms - but in reality it limits people's freedoms to violate others' freedoms. Same here: a system that pushes the companies to reward their workers better at the expense of the company's heads isn't oppressive, it is simply a regulation aimed at guaranteeing better overall quality of life and happier lives of people. Granted, there is a point at which businesses start not being viable any more, so some balance should be maintained. Is the current minimum wage in the US balanced? I doubt that.

[Turtlewithnoshell]

The problem is the worship/respect is only for those at the very top of the spectrum. Those very same people have a great deal of animosity towards those in the income bracket just ahead of their own. That hatred is doubled if said person is also a member of a union. Their logic is backwards...People need to work hard, but only if they do it as an individual because they'll probably benefit more through collective bargaining.

I think you're generalising way too much about each income bracket.

[Deleted]

This falsely presumes that there's an infinite number of higher-end jobs for skilled employees, so that there are guaranteed jobs they can get when they earn that education, every single one of them.

That isn't how the labor market works. These people would learn those skills, flood the market with employees with those skills, and those skills would become the new baseline for minimum-wage earners, due to competition among workers to secure those jobs.

That's how it's happened every time beforehand. It used to be that most people didn't bother with secondary school; that's why we still have the label "secondary" on it. Nowadays, a high school diploma qualifies you for only the most basic stuff, and not having one will leave you unqualified for many minimum-wage positions.

Actually, it is PRECISELY how the market works. (can I use italian too?)
Every time the society advanced, skill requirements have increased, and the skills have increased as well.
In the past, people did not need to know how to count. Now they do.

The world: I need you to know how to use fire.
Person: Ok, I will learn that.
The world: Get some weapon skills.
Person: Ok, I will learn that.
The world: Cultivate the crops and the herds.
Person: Ok, I will learn that.
The world: Now I need you to be able to count
Person: Ok, I will learn that.
The world: Learn to read and write.
Person: Ok, I will learn that.
The world: You have to know how to use computers.
Person: Ok, I will learn that.

The list goes on, and will go on.
(also, regarding formal education - that is becoming somehow less of a requirement, actually)

[Bodakane]

The source of corruption is the politician, not the briber. If the politician does not allow himself to be corrupted, it cannot occur.

That is immensely stupid. It is also typical of the conservative's concept of ethics. It also shows a complete lack of understanding how these politicians are actually put into power.

[Machismo]

Freedom is a tricky concept. When, for example, a person has to do a job they hate for small wages, because all other positions in their small town are already taken and they need to eat something - is that person really free? Their circumstances can be exploited by others, which essentially is the same as if the government exploited them - the latter would be called totalitarianism though.

The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that perfectly free market isn't all that free, since one of the types of freedom it grants is a freedom to exploit others' basic needs, which is essentially an oppression. Freedom of oppression isn't really a freedom, is it?

The way I see it, market regulations are essentially the same as law system. You could say that law system is oppressive, because it limits people's freedoms - but in reality it limits people's freedoms to violate others' freedoms. Same here: a system that pushes the companies to reward their workers better at the expense of the company's heads isn't oppressive, it is simply a regulation aimed at guaranteeing better overall quality of life and happier lives of people. Granted, there is a point at which businesses start not being viable any more, so some balance should be maintained. Is the current minimum wage in the US balanced? I doubt that.

That person does not HAVE to do anything. They chose to do that job, and they chose to not look for another. As soon as you restrict a victimless action, you are not protecting people's freedoms, you are taking them away. You are reducing the maximum possible freedom. And yes, when that system involves the force of government, it is oppressive. Otherwise, the public could do it themselves, by simply not patronizing that business. A business paying an employee what they both agree upon is not limiting his freedom, not by a long shot. He willingly made that choice, no duress was required on the part of the company.

[Endus]

That person does not HAVE to do anything. They chose to do that job, and they chose to not look for another. As soon as you restrict a victimless action, you are not protecting people's freedoms, you are taking them away. You are reducing the maximum possible freedom. And yes, when that system involves the force of government, it is oppressive. Otherwise, the public could do it themselves, by simply not patronizing that business. A business paying an employee what they both agree upon is not limiting his freedom, not by a long shot. He willingly made that choice, no duress was required on the part of the company.

As long as "struggling to pay rent/get food on the table while getting by on welfare" is the alternatiive, then no, it wasn't a freely made decision on the employee's part. If the employer had created that hardship rather than merely taking advantage of it, we'd call that coercion, and it would render any such negotiation invalid, precisely because it so obviously taints people's capacity to make a free decision.

[Machismo]

As long as "struggling to pay rent/get food on the table while getting by on welfare" is the alternatiive, then no, it wasn't a freely made decision on the employee's part. If the employer had created that hardship rather than merely taking advantage of it, we'd call that coercion, and it would render any such negotiation invalid, precisely because it so obviously taints people's capacity to make a free decision.

But the company did not put that person under duress, so why punish them? You want top punish entities which have caused no harm.

That's like blaming shoppers who show up to a "going out of business sale."

[Endus]

But the company did not put that person under duress, so why punish them? You want top punish entities which have caused no harm.

That's like blaming shoppers who show up to a "going out of business sale."

I'm explicitly not talking about punishing them. You continue to misrepresent things. Requiring them to provide fair and equitable compensation is not a "punishment", it's preventing them from taking abusive action.

[Captain N]

I think you're generalising way too much about each income bracket.

I wish I was. Stick around awhile you'll see the people against wage increases crying about how it's not fair that someone else negotiated a wage better than their own.

[stariv]

keep hearing about this... yet rockefeller was worth approx 10x what bill gates is worth in today's money.

Not exactly true. That's if you measure his wealth in proportion to the US GDP.
His ~$1-1.5 billion adjusted for INFLATION would be roughly 20 billion today, much less than gates, but roughly on the same order of magnitude, not 10x more certainly