wealth inequality

[Deleted]

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.

Having a problem with any kind of union is kind of silly, specially those of public servants.

It should be the government who ensures that all work has a liveable wage, that is the whole reason why there are minimum wages to begin with. But its up to the employers to pay it up, you should be able to live off the work that you provide, no matter what the work is.

You do not seem to understand what equality of outcome means, it certainly does not mean a living wage. A living wage is nothing more then a wage someone could live off, and yes, this would include some extra spending. This has nothing to do with "equal outcome" but rather with ensuring that the people can live off the fruits of their own labour. People who work should have no need for government assistance, their pay should be enough to cover the cost for everything that they need. Equality off outcome would entail things like "It should not matter if someone collects garbage for a living, they deserve the same pay as that surgeon", and no one is pushing for anything like that.

[Machismo]

Having a problem with any kind of union is kind of silly, specially those of public servants.

It should be the government who ensures that all work has a liveable wage, that is the whole reason why there are minimum wages to begin with. But its up to the employers to pay it up, you should be able to live off the work that you provide, no matter what the work is.

You do not seem to understand what equality of outcome means, it certainly does not mean a living wage. A living wage is nothing more then a wage someone could live off, and yes, this would include some extra spending. This has nothing to do with "equal outcome" but rather with ensuring that the people can live off the fruits of their own labour. People who work should have no need for government assistance, their pay should be enough to cover the cost for everything that they need. Equality off outcome would entail things like "It should not matter if someone collects garbage for a living, they deserve the same pay as that surgeon", and no one is pushing for anything like that.

Forcing a living wage is pushing for equality of outcome. It's artificially increasing some people's salaries, to push them higher. That sounds like equality of outcome to me. Nothing you mention requires any actual government intervention. If you really want those things, and you believe you are not alone, then you all should refuse to giver your money to any business that does not pay their employees what you think they should be paid. If you aren't willing to do it yourself, then having the government do it for you is ridiculous.

As for public-employee unions, they are a problem. Unlike a private business negotiating with a union, a public employee union and the government are not negotiating with their own money. IT's a lot easier to give money away, when it's not yours. In those negotiations, they used faulty aging models, which leads to pension plans that are absolutely unsustainable. Once again, the public is on the hook for that corruption and incompetence. Many cites, as well as some states are facing collapse because of government negotiators and public-employee unions.

[Deleted]

Forcing a living wage is pushing for equality of outcome. It's artificially increasing some people's salaries, to push them higher. That sounds like equality of outcome to me. Nothing you mention requires any actual government intervention. If you really want those things, and you believe you are not alone, then you all should refuse to giver your money to any business that does not pay their employees what you think they should be paid. If you aren't willing to do it yourself, then having the government do it for you is ridiculous.

As for public-employee unions, they are a problem. Unlike a private business negotiating with a union, a public employee union and the government are not negotiating with their own money. IT's a lot easier to give money away, when it's not yours. In those negotiations, they used faulty aging models, which leads to pension plans that are absolutely unsustainable. Once again, the public is on the hook for that corruption and incompetence. Many cites, as well as some states are facing collapse because of government negotiators and public-employee unions.

Forcing a living wage has nothing to do with equality of outcome, "artificially" increasing the salaries of almost all people isn't "equality of outcome" in any way shape or form. The thought of "capitalism at work" is just laughable, you must know that the market doesn't work like that. Employers will always pay as little to employee as they can get away with. We need the government to step in and ensure that people are not being taken advantage off. A single person can not be held responsible for knowing exactly who earns what where, there is just no way to make an informed decision. So this is something the government should do, and they have done so in the past. But you can't hold that against the people working for shit wages, they just do whatever they can to keep their heads just above the waterline at this point.

Public unions are not a problem, putting incompetent people in charge is a problem. It has precisely nothing to do with the unions them selves nor has it anything to do with "giving away other peoples moneys". If you really think that the people who are negotiating deals for big business are the same people who actually own the business then you are seriously mistaken.

[Machismo]

Forcing a living wage has nothing to do with equality of outcome, "artificially" increasing the salaries of almost all people isn't "equality of outcome" in any way shape or form. The thought of "capitalism at work" is just laughable, you must know that the market doesn't work like that. Employers will always pay as little to employee as they can get away with. We need the government to step in and ensure that people are not being taken advantage off. A single person can not be held responsible for knowing exactly who earns what where, there is just no way to make an informed decision. So this is something the government should do, and they have done so in the past. But you can't hold that against the people working for shit wages, they just do whatever they can to keep their heads just above the waterline at this point.

Public unions are not a problem, putting incompetent people in charge is a problem. It has precisely nothing to do with the unions them selves nor has it anything to do with "giving away other peoples moneys". If you really think that the people who are negotiating deals for big business are the same people who actually own the business then you are seriously mistaken.

No, you don't need the government to step in, you want them to step in because you are too lazy to handle it yourself. Employers will play as little as possible, and employees will try to earn as much as possible. On top of that, if you don't like how a company operates, refuse to give them your money. The consumers have all the power, they are just too lazy and complacent to use it. Instead, they want the government to do it for them. If you don't know how much a company pays its employees, then you are not trying, it's not difficult to find out. Stop turning to the government to fix your problems for you, and take some responsibility for once in your life.

[Deleted]

No, you don't need the government to step in, you want them to step in because you are too lazy to handle it yourself. Employers will play as little as possible, and employees will try to earn as much as possible. On top of that, if you don't like how a company operates, refuse to give them your money. The consumers have all the power, they are just too lazy and complacent to use it. Instead, they want the government to do it for them. If you don't know how much a company pays its employees, then you are not trying, it's not difficult to find out. Stop turning to the government to fix your problems for you, and take some responsibility for once in your life.

No, we need them to step in, because you can not make an informed decision to begin with. You can't "not shop" somewhere when most of the time they have an monopoly in your area to begin with. Face it, capitalism does not work like that. If the only choice costumers have is "where do i buy stuff as cheap as possible" then there is no choice to have. If people had enough money and choice then you might have a point, but we don't because people just do not have the means to make a decision, not in information nor in monetary means. That is why the government needs to step in, you may detest the government, but that is your problem. These are not as much my problems as they are the nations problems and that is yet another reason as to why the government needs to fix this.

[Cthulhu 2020]

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

Rofl. Ok, I'll entertain the ignorant. People can work over 60 hours a week and still only be able to afford the bare basics. Unless you have a strong support system like parents paying a huge amount of expenses early in your life, including college, it's extremely hard to ever save up to better yourself. The systems designed to give the poor bare basics, like renting dish washers, laundry machines, payday loans, pawn shops, etc. all make everything more expensive. They can rent an apartment for ridiculous amounts of money and never own a piece of it. The whole system of renting benefits the owner at the expense of the poor never actually gaining more assets in their life for shelling out that money. When most people in the middle class buy something like a house, they're improving their assets.

If you won the birth lottery and your parents are middle class or, even better, you're a rich trust fund baby, in MMO terms you got carried. You could enter life by being able to afford to improve your assets by paying for things immediately. Most do not have that luxury.

Social mobility in the last 3 decades has decreased dramatically. Those who worship wealth just blame it on the entire populace getting lazier, instead of acknowledging the fact that more and more systems are designed to keep people in poverty. Even if not intentionally, the systems of rental and otherwise make money from the poor that overwhelmingly benefits the owners of such services.

There's a huge reason why I have always outright bought things, instead of doing it on credit. For my car and my house, I put large down payments on both of them.

[breadisfunny]

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.

answer the question why should we respect wealth?

[Cthulhu 2020]

Forcing a living wage is pushing for equality of outcome. It's artificially increasing some people's salaries, to push them higher. That sounds like equality of outcome to me. Nothing you mention requires any actual government intervention. If you really want those things, and you believe you are not alone, then you all should refuse to giver your money to any business that does not pay their employees what you think they should be paid. If you aren't willing to do it yourself, then having the government do it for you is ridiculous.

As for public-employee unions, they are a problem. Unlike a private business negotiating with a union, a public employee union and the government are not negotiating with their own money. IT's a lot easier to give money away, when it's not yours. In those negotiations, they used faulty aging models, which leads to pension plans that are absolutely unsustainable. Once again, the public is on the hook for that corruption and incompetence. Many cites, as well as some states are facing collapse because of government negotiators and public-employee unions.

There's not a single grocery store within 50 miles that I know of that pays their employees more than $10/hr. Same with most retailers. So you're suggesting I just starve? You keep acting as if people have more choices than they actually do. In your fantasy world, people have choices between a veritable buffet of job offers, and it's very obvious that you've never had to simply take a job just so you could keep eating and keep a roof over your head. It seems you've never faced that kind of hardship. You think people often have a buffet of choices of where to shop. "Oh there's these grocery stores and one pays minimum wage, one pays $9/hr, one pays $15/hr, one pays $25/hr, I'll go shop at that last one!" No, wrong.

Your ENTIRE ARGUMENT falls to pieces if people don't have meaningful choices of where to work, where to shop, etc.

[Machismo]

No, we need them to step in, because you can not make an informed decision to begin with. You can't "not shop" somewhere when most of the time they have an monopoly in your area to begin with. Face it, capitalism does not work like that. If the only choice costumers have is "where do i buy stuff as cheap as possible" then there is no choice to have. If people had enough money and choice then you might have a point, but we don't because people just do not have the means to make a decision, not in information nor in monetary means. That is why the government needs to step in, you may detest the government, but that is your problem. These are not as much my problems as they are the nations problems and that is yet another reason as to why the government needs to fix this.

Who has a monopoly where you live? Most monopolies are protected by the very government you want to come in and protect you.

Customers do have a choice, they simply opt to buy the cheapest products, ignoring the fact that they are cheap for a reason. You want to blame companies for being selfish, but not consumers. If you are going to demand that companies all raise their wages, then those cheap products are going to go away, then you really will have less of a choice.

[Glorious Leader]

Forcing a living wage is pushing for equality of outcome.

Because the outcome without a living wage is poverty, starvation, misery and ultimately death. Now if you're okay with that outcome that's fine but it makes you a monster.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Who has a monopoly where you live? Most monopolies are protected by the very government you want to come in and protect you.

Customers do have a choice, they simply opt to buy the cheapest products, ignoring the fact that they are cheap for a reason. You want to blame companies for being selfish, but not consumers. If you are going to demand that companies all raise their wages, then those cheap products are going to go away, then you really will have less of a choice.

There's not a monopoly, but you try finding a grocery store that pays more than $15/hr in most towns and get back to us when you do.

[Machismo]

There's not a single grocery store within 50 miles that I know of that pays their employees more than $10/hr. Same with most retailers. So you're suggesting I just starve? You keep acting as if people have more choices than they actually do. In your fantasy world, people have choices between a veritable buffet of job offers, and it's very obvious that you've never had to simply take a job just so you could keep eating and keep a roof over your head. It seems you've never faced that kind of hardship. You think people often have a buffet of choices of where to shop. "Oh there's these grocery stores and one pays minimum wage, one pays $9/hr, one pays $15/hr, one pays $25/hr, I'll go shop at that last one!" No, wrong.

Your ENTIRE ARGUMENT falls to pieces if people don't have meaningful choices of where to work, where to shop, etc.

Then don't shop at any of them. If you really gave a damn, you would put your money where your mouth is. Business give consumers what they want, and consumers have made it quite clear, they want lower prices, and don't give a damn about people's wages.

- - - Updated - - -

There's not a monopoly, but you try finding a grocery store that pays more than $15/hr in most towns and get back to us when you do.

Why are you so set on $15 an hour? Do you have any idea where that number actually came from? It's nothing more than a political talking point that has zero basis in economic reality. If you think that the employees at your local supermarket deserve more, demand it from their employer. If they refuse, and say that they would rather give you lower prices, then take the money that you saved, and give it directly to the employee. If you are that concerned about their well being, then put your money where your mouth is.

[Deleted]

Who has a monopoly where you live? Most monopolies are protected by the very government you want to come in and protect you.

Customers do have a choice, they simply opt to buy the cheapest products, ignoring the fact that they are cheap for a reason. You want to blame companies for being selfish, but not consumers. If you are going to demand that companies all raise their wages, then those cheap products are going to go away, then you really will have less of a choice.

What the hell are you arguing, the government isn't evil, they aren't out to get you or anything like that.

Costumers do not have a choice, because they do not have the means to make that choice. You do not have a choice when you do not have the means to choose anything else but cheap.

- - - Updated - - -

Then don't shop at any of them. If you really gave a damn, you would put your money where your mouth is. Business give consumers what they want, and consumers have made it quite clear, they want lower prices, and don't give a damn about people's wages.

- - - Updated - - -



Why are you so set on $15 an hour? Do you have any idea where that number actually came from? It's nothing more than a political talking point that has zero basis in economic reality. If you think that the employees at your local supermarket deserve more, demand it from their employer. If they refuse, and say that they would rather give you lower prices, then take the money that you saved, and give it directly to the employee. If you are that concerned about their well being, then put your money where your mouth is.

Oooh so he should starve, because there isn't a choice like that, so he must starve right. Not call upon the evil government to step in.. /s

[Machismo]

Because the outcome without a living wage is poverty, starvation, misery and ultimately death. Now if you're okay with that outcome that's fine but it makes you a monster.

How is that the responsibility of an employer?

And no, a living wage is not a subsistence wage. There is a difference.

- - - Updated - - -

What the hell are you arguing, the government isn't evil, they aren't out to get you or anything like that.

Costumers do not have a choice, because they do not have the means to make that choice. You do not have a choice when you do not have the means to choose anything else but cheap.

- - - Updated - - -



Oooh so he should starve, because there isn't a choice like that, so he must starve right. Not call upon the evil government to step in.. /s

You do have a choice, you simply elect not to make that choice. Your plan is to actually increase costs, meaning you have even less of a choice than you already claim to have.

The government is not evil (usually), it is simply cumbersome, inept, corrupt, and oppressive.

[Deleted]

How is that the responsibility of an employer?

And no, a living wage is not a subsistence wage. There is a difference.

- - - Updated - - -



You do have a choice, you simply elect not to make that choice. Your plan is to actually increase costs, meaning you have even less of a choice than you already claim to have.

The government is not evil (usually), it is simply cumbersome, inept, corrupt, and oppressive.

So according to you people should not be able to take care of them selves or deserve any kind of fun or security for their labour. Thats okay, but it makes you a monster just like the guy you quoted suggested. And he isn't saying that the employers should do that, that is you implying stuff again, everyone pretty much agrees that this is a job of the government.

And we do not have a choice, if the choice is buying something or starving then you do not have a choice.

And what you say about the government is exactly the same as any other big company, the only difference is that the government isn't out to squeeze you out of your last dime and actually tries to better the situation of the people.

[JohnBrown1917]

Of course, working for low wages is also a risk, and people seem willing to take that risk all the time.

Yes, because they need money to surive, but you make it sound as if everybody can just go out and start a business and succeed.

[Felya]

How is that the responsibility of an employer?

By being the employer? A business that cannot afford to pay their employees a living wage is a flawed business that shouldn't exist. We end up paying the differance through social programs, crime or deterioration of quality of life. Every single employee that gets welfare or gets any sort of state assistance, is actually supporting the business through tax payers making up the differance.

Want less taxes? Have employees pay their workers a wage that removes their need for social programs. According to the 2013 CBO, an increase to 10 bucks n hour, would remove 900k families from poverty line and every social program they qualified for.

You do have a choice, you simply elect not to make that choice. Your plan is to actually increase costs, meaning you have even less of a choice than you already claim to have.

This is just silly. What percentage of good's value is it's local minimum wage workers? How much would these people be putting back into the pockets of these companies by being able to spend more?

The government is not evil (usually), it is simply cumbersome, inept, corrupt, and oppressive.

What is government corruption? As a representation of the people, government corruption centers on doing the will of corporations or those who can afford to influence government. In this case, the clear case of corruption is the very thing you are advocating. If the goal was representing the people and not corporations, we would have seen cost of living increases in the minimum wage. But, because government is pretty much paid off through lobbying, the welfare of the people is ignore.

[Deleted]

By being the employer? A business that cannot afford to pay their employees a living wage is a flawed business that shouldn't exist. We end up paying the differance through social programs, crime or deterioration of quality of life. Every single employee that gets welfare or gets any sort of state assistance, is actually supporting the business through tax payers making up the differance.

Want less taxes? Have employees pay their workers a wage that removes their need for social programs. According to the 2013 CBO, an increase to 10 bucks n hour, would remove 900k families from poverty line and every social program they qualified for.



This is just silly. What percentage of good's value is it's local minimum wage workers? How much would these people be putting back into the pockets of these companies by being able to spend more?



What is government corruption? As a representation of the people, government corruption centers on doing the will of corporations or those who can afford to influence government. In this case, the clear case of corruption is the very thing you are advocating. If the goal was representing the people and not corporations, we would have seen cost of living increases in the minimum wage. But, because government is pretty much paid off through lobbying, the welfare of the people is ignore.

Or people could go and get a real job instead of trying to raise a family on a McDonald's job that was made for teenagers?
Who knows!

[Felya]

Or people could go and get a real job instead of trying to raise a family on a McDonald's job that was made for teenagers?
Who knows!

Why not just get more money? It's just as magical as 'go get a better job'. Just plant a money tree in your backya... I mean in a secluded public park.

I do agree, those jobs created for teenagers that operate during school hours are keen.

[Deleted]

Or people could go and get a real job instead of trying to raise a family on a McDonald's job that was made for teenagers?
Who knows!

The problem is that you think that there are jobs "made for teenagers".