wealth inequality

[May90]

That might have been nice like 50 years ago, but now the labour market is going to be in such a flux for the forseeable future, such aid programs would be pointless. Hell even people who go to University and get degree's can end up flipping burgers for 7.50/h.

There are always jobs to be created, but there aren't always jobs to be found. Just off the top of my head: on the river I run by every morning, quite a few people do fishing, and they seem to be catching quite a lot. On the other hand, there is a food store nearby which sells quite a bit of fish. The government could step in and use this opportunity to help the poor, jobless as follows: work out a contract between them and the store, so they would fish daily and sell the catch to the store. The store could then contact another organization and hire people there to prepare fish for sale, pack it, etc. Suddenly we have created a few new jobs. Take multiple food stores in the city, and that is many new jobs.

Possibilities are limitless. A lot of people have needs, and a lot of people can fulfill those needs - but, due to the nature of market, it is very hard for them to connect with each other, and such places as Craigslist are not very reliable and convenient. Everyone, every single person starting with a reasonable age could do something right now that boosts the economy and make lives of themselves and others better. If the government encouraged such chaotic enterpreneurship more and helped the poor find new opportunities for earning money, while providing with money those that actually cannot work - then the only poor people would be the ones that would actually be unwilling to work. And those people would be poor by choice and not by circumstance. As more people work, GDP increases, economy grows, and more funds allow to fund people's education, healthcare, etc., while not sacrificing the size of the budget left. Everybody wins, nobody loses.

[Gestopft]

I thought it was obvious, but since you asked I edited the post to emphasize why having no money sucked. Read it again and then tell me that not being rich really was better in the 60's. (Only one point wasn't related to money, which I moved to the bottom.)



Ya, see my post again.

And speaking very honestly, you've got much deeper psychological issues if you think that things only get worse as time moves on, and that the old days are in any way better. I'm not trying to talk down to anybody with that statement; it's just a fact, having that mindset is one among many symptoms of depression AND anxiety.

You are completely missing the point. Nobody is saying that society and technology haven't improved things.

If we combined today's societal and technological progress with the wealth distribution from the 60's, then the poor people of today would see a vast improvement.

[ArmoredDragoon]

Nothing has changed really, still has nothing to do with wealth or income. You just mention some political stuff and put emphasis on how we have made medical strives. It takes nothing away from the fact that a factory worker was much better off then as they are now. At least back then when you had work you also had some money, these days you can work your ass off and still have nothing to show for it.
Advancements made in technology have nothing to do with wealth, and the raised standards of living during the years is due to technology, not due to getting more wealth.
A child in Africa who has a Nokia 3310 isn't suddenly more wealthy or powerful then NASA during the moon missions just because he has a better computer then they had at that time.

It's as if my text is invisible to the ultra left or something, because as I've (correctly) stated multiple times, money is NOT wealth.

But let's suppose you're making the money argument (even though you stated wealth) and go with that: How are you better off then than today given the only way you go to Afghanistan is if you just plain voluntarily join the military, whereas in the past you were sent to Vietnam if you had no money? Please, explain this to me. And that's just the first point I made.

[Bollocks]

There are always jobs to be created, but there aren't always jobs to be found. Just off the top of my head: on the river I run by every morning, quite a few people do fishing, and they seem to be catching quite a lot. On the other hand, there is a food store nearby which sells quite a bit of fish. The government could step in and use this opportunity to help the poor, jobless as follows: work out a contract between them and the store, so they would fish daily and sell the catch to the store. The store could then contact another organization and hire people there to prepare fish for sale, pack it, etc. Suddenly we have created a few new jobs. Take multiple food stores in the city, and that is many new jobs.

Possibilities are limitless. A lot of people have needs, and a lot of people can fulfill those needs - but, due to the nature of market, it is very hard for them to connect with each other, and such places as Craigslist are not very reliable and convenient. Everyone, every single person starting with a reasonable age could do something right now that boosts the economy and make lives of themselves and others better. If the government encouraged such chaotic enterpreneurship more and helped the poor find new opportunities for earning money, while providing with money those that actually cannot work - then the only poor people would be the ones that would actually be unwilling to work. And those people would be poor by choice and not by circumstance. As more people work, GDP increases, economy grows, and more funds allow to fund people's education, healthcare, etc., while not sacrificing the size of the budget left. Everybody wins, nobody loses.

The goverment can cause an economic boom any moment they want. Its just not recommendable to do so. Also reduction of unemployment more than it actually is, can be dangerous.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Yes if only the world were as simple as that then you could.be nothing but consistent all the time. Unfortunately being consistent is not the best criteria for any public or social policy. Especially if it's consistently wrong or provides consistently terrible results for the population.


I guess the sarcasm wasn't clear. What part of freedom from hierarchy and authority suggests I'd rather have more government? The nuance is that I recognize that the real power is the business class interest that buys the politicians and pays for the laws in its favor. Simple removing government will remove the need for bribes because they'll be able to proceed with whatever bs they want minus the need for a pay out. In the end ALL FORMS OF hierarchy should.go including government but most especially private property. I mean government is a tyranny but the assholes who order you around for.6 or 7 hours a day are Bros? You get more orders at work then you will EVER get from a policeman or government official. It's the same government that protects and guarantees the right to private property (the means of production ) at the expense of the working class. If you're in favor of the government or any entity maintaining private property rights then you're in favor of the grossest tyranny, the most Egregious coercion and the ultimate violence on your fellow men. To quote proudhon "property is theft!"

Yeah, people seem to forget or even not realize that if we got rid of most government power, that vacuum of power would just be filled in by big businesses seizing it. In the absence of someone taking control of power, someone will always look to seize that position.

[xChurch]

Yeah, people seem to forget or even not realize that if we got rid of most government power, that vacuum of power would just be filled in by big businesses seizing it. In the absence of someone taking control of power, someone will always look to seize that position.

People tend to forget that there is a constant struggle between corporations and the government over who has more power over the people. If it's not one, it'll be the other, the only difference is we can effect change in the government if we are commited.

[ArmoredDragoon]

Yeah, people seem to forget or even not realize that if we got rid of most government power, that vacuum of power would just be filled in by big businesses seizing it. In the absence of someone taking control of power, someone will always look to seize that position.

That's interesting because over the last 400 years we've been scaling back the power of government, and private businesses have at the same time declined in power. Just in case you think I'm wrong, let me cite a couple of examples:

The Dutch East India company at its height was worth today's equivalent of $7.4 trillion. They had indentured servants AND owned slaves, declared war on other corporations and even governments, and could imprison or even execute you if you didn't pay your bills. It wasn't just them that did all of this though; practically every business at the time could do all of the above. But, even though they had money they weren't as powerful as most governments; namely, they didn't have absolute power over their constituents.

In 1720, the Mississippi co was worth $6 trillion in today's dollars and the South Sea co was worth about $4 trillion; and again, most governments of this time exercised absolute power over their constituents.

And I'm not saying this is you, but anybody who thinks corporations of today are big and overpowering or even continue to get bigger and bigger, (IBM was worth today's equivalent of $1.3 trillion in 1967; much smaller than past companies, and no US company has ever come near that since) or anybody who thinks that the founding fathers didn't understand just how powerful corporations could become and thus we "need more laws", have essentially no concept as to just what exactly the founding fathers actually bore witness to. What we have today are very small pickles in comparison.

[Cthulhu 2020]

That's interesting because over the last 400 years we've been scaling back the power of government, and private businesses have at the same time declined in power. Just in case you think I'm wrong, let me cite a couple of examples:

The Dutch East India company at its height was worth today's equivalent of $7.4 trillion. They had indentured servants AND owned slaves, declared war on other corporations and even governments, and could imprison or even execute you if you didn't pay your bills. It wasn't just them that did all of this though; practically every business at the time could do all of the above. But, even though they had money they weren't as powerful as most governments; namely, they didn't have absolute power over their constituents.

In 1720, the Mississippi co was worth $6 trillion in today's dollars and the South Sea co was worth about $4 trillion; and again, most governments of this time exercised absolute power over their constituents.

And I'm not saying this is you, but anybody who thinks corporations of today are big and overpowering or even continue to get bigger and bigger, (IBM was worth today's equivalent of $1.3 trillion in 1967; much smaller than past companies, and no US company has ever come near that since) or anybody who thinks that the founding fathers didn't understand just how powerful corporations could become and thus we "need more laws", have essentially no concept as to just what exactly the founding fathers actually bore witness to. What we have today are very small pickles in comparison.

I'm saying what I said to anyone who thinks we should remove government power, saying that corporations WILL step in and fill that void of power, much like they have in the past. People in here seem to think that 1. Corporations have the best interests of people at heart and are really there to the benefit of society and 2. the free market forces would prevent corporations from harming people if they ever wanted to. It's naivety on their part that we're trying to dispel.

[Deleted]

It's as if my text is invisible to the ultra left or something, because as I've (correctly) stated multiple times, money is NOT wealth.

But let's suppose you're making the money argument (even though you stated wealth) and go with that: How are you better off then than today given the only way you go to Afghanistan is if you just plain voluntarily join the military, whereas in the past you were sent to Vietnam if you had no money? Please, explain this to me. And that's just the first point I made.

You can make that argument, but you would be wrong. Money is and will always be a form of wealth, one that can easily be compared.

And then you go on and spout some political nonsense again, what you say has precisely nothing at all to do with wealth. The way the military works has nothing to do with wealth. You have not made a single point, not one, let alone more.

[Mormolyce]

15$ an hour is double the current minimum wage. There are better ways to help the poor.

Like a $16 minimum wage?

It's double the current minimum wage because it's lagged behind inflation for 50 years.

[Bollocks]

Like a $16 minimum wage?

It's double the current minimum wage because it's lagged behind inflation for 50 years.

Not necesarily but an increse on the earned income tax credits, and medicaid. Such a drastic increase can lead to unemployment.

[Mormolyce]

what are these imaginary forces?
you being lazy? you expecting hand outs and not getting them?

If only I'd worked harder as a fetus to get pushed out of a millionaire's womb like Trump.

- - - Updated - - -

Not necesarily but an increse on the earned income tax credits, and medicaid. Such a drastic increase can lead to unemployment.

Speculative to say the least.

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs.

Not true: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, "In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front."

https://www.dol.gov/featured/minimum-wage/mythbuster

[Bollocks]

If only I'd worked harder as a fetus to get pushed out of a millionaire's womb like Trump.

- - - Updated - - -



Speculative to say the least.


https://www.dol.gov/featured/minimum-wage/mythbuster

Myth: Small business owners can't afford to pay their workers more, and therefore don't support an increase in the minimum wage.

Not true: A July 2015 survey found that 3 out of 5 small business owners with employees support a gradual increase in the minimum wage to $12. The survey reports that small business owners say an increase "would immediately put more money in the pocket of low-wage workers who will then spend the money on things like housing, food, and gas. This boost in demand for goods and services will help stimulate the economy and help create opportunities."

An increase to a 15$ minimum wage is a huge increase compared to what you have right now. To put it simple, the median wage in Minnesota is 12$ so an increase in the minimum wage to 15$ is more than what the average citizen gains. If you want to increase the minimum wage increase it to a reasonable level and step by step.

[Ragelicious]

So edgy bro. Under no circumstance would any reasonable person define America as a third world country.

Under no circumstances? The fact that its posible to work fulltime and not earn a living wage is a clear sign. Capital punishment? Murder rates? male circumcision?? a national dept on $ 19,296,411,261,818. Amount of homeless people? Lack of healthcare?? Food stamps?? doesn't get more 3rd world within the western civilization.

- - - Updated - - -

didnt u know where hes from the government gives u 6months worth of spending when u start out in life... oh wait

- - - Updated - - -



USA is a 3rd world country? and the biggest economy and the most powerful nation and the most tech advanced? damn, you would think you 1st world countries could accomplish something of note. what has denmark ever done for the better of the world?

Interesting Facts on US dept.

You could wrap $1 bills around the Earth 75,115 times with the debt amount!

If you lay $1 bills on top of each other they would make a pile 2,107,361 km, or 1,309,453 miles high!

That's equivalent to 5.48 trips to the Moon!

[Machismo]

Or just crush them in the upcoming election.

$15 an hour is mostly just correcting for inflation that the US has let slide for decades. Minimum wage is about that here, too.

Actually, we are still slightly above the hostorical average for minimum wage in America.

It's going to take a long time for Democrats to take back Congress, likely at least a decade. The GOP may be piss poor at winning the presidency, but they are firmly entrenched on Congress. Their rhetoric plays much better on the small stage, where their candidates are often celebrated for their idiocy.

- - - Updated - - -

History has proven over and over again that government and/or unionization is needed to make an economy work for the many and not just the few. Or maybe you can find a developed nation where the free market provides a livable wage for even low-level workers.

Once again, I'm all for unionization.

As for your second point, I don't care if everyone has a "livable wage." That should not be up to society to provide people, that should be up to the individual. I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

[Glorious Leader]

That's interesting because over the last 400 years we've been scaling back the power of government, and private businesses have at the same time declined in power. Just in case you think I'm wrong, let me cite a couple of examples:

The Dutch East India company at its height was worth today's equivalent of $7.4 trillion. They had indentured servants AND owned slaves, declared war on other corporations and even governments, and could imprison or even execute you if you didn't pay your bills. It wasn't just them that did all of this though; practically every business at the time could do all of the above. But, even though they had money they weren't as powerful as most governments; namely, they didn't have absolute power over their constituents.

In 1720, the Mississippi co was worth $6 trillion in today's dollars and the South Sea co was worth about $4 trillion; and again, most governments of this time exercised absolute power over their constituents.

And I'm not saying this is you, but anybody who thinks corporations of today are big and overpowering or even continue to get bigger and bigger, (IBM was worth today's equivalent of $1.3 trillion in 1967; much smaller than past companies, and no US company has ever come near that since) or anybody who thinks that the founding fathers didn't understand just how powerful corporations could become and thus we "need more laws", have essentially no concept as to just what exactly the founding fathers actually bore witness to. What we have today are very small pickles in comparison.

That's rich. Yes they can no longer own slaves, no one can. It does not follow from this that their relative ability to influence legislation is less. They wield just as much if not more power in their interest.

[Machismo]

It's not only unemployed people that are poor.

I never said it was. I was asked specifically about unemployed people.

[Gestopft]

Once again, I'm all for unionization.

Maybe you can convince some of your fellow libertarians and conservatives to get on board that train.

As for your second point, I don't care if everyone has a "livable wage." That should not be up to society to provide people, that should be up to the individual.

People need enough to live off of. Either employers pay it or society pays for it. If you prefer a society where only some people can achieve prosperity and many are bound to fail, than that's your prerogative. I'd rather not accept that.

I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

So do I. But you don't get equality of opportunity from the free market. And I don't really see anybody in this thread, or even on this board pushing for equality of outcome.

[Machismo]

Maybe you can convince some of your fellow libertarians and conservatives to get on board that train.



People need enough to live off of. Either employers pay it or society pays for it. If you prefer a society where only some people can achieve prosperity and many are bound to fail, than that's your prerogative. I'd rather not accept that.



So do I. But you don't get equality of opportunity from the free market. And I don't really see anybody in this thread, or even on this board pushing for equality of outcome.

I think they mainly have an issue with public-employee unions, since it often leads to the two sides bargaining from the same side of the table. It's much easier to negotiate, when it's not your money.

A living wage and a subsistence wage are not the same thing. I'd be much more receptive to their cause if they used the idea of a subsistence wage. I certainly do not think the responsibility should fall to an employer to provide it. That responsibility should belong to the individual, an can be ensured by consumers.

Plenty of people are pushing for equality of outcome, that's what demanding a living wage is all about. We don't have a free market, and we never have. What we have is a corporatist system, and instead of getting rid of that legislation that allows it, people want to simply put more bad legislation on top of it. I find the better solution would be to get rid of the bad legislation. Otherwise, the people proposing a minimum wage increase are no different than the corporatists who screwed the system in the first place.

[Turtlewithnoshell]

why should we respect wealth?

read the comment again and come back with a question that you actually want me to answer instead of trying to set me up for you to make a big point.