wealth inequality

[Tijuana]

Because that's not a solution to social ills caused by wealth inequality. The gains from increased productivity (growth) of the past 30 years have all largely been sucked up by the top 1%. Growth cannot be a solution when the income inequality is so great that it prevents it from reaching the bottom tier of society. It's essentially the same trickle down philosophy that we've had shoved in our faces for 30 years and IT HASNT WORKED.

I mean, a graph was already linked in this thread that shows while the gap is increasing, the lower end is increasing also. So if the complaint is that the middle class has it better now than they did then, but the issue is their growth is not matching that of the wealthy, I'm just not feeling the outrage. If everyone is better off, to me, that's good.

- - - Updated - - -

Labor negotiations are fundamentally involuntary or at least are marked by complete distortions of power. Labor has very little (for a number of reasons) and Capital has most of it. Labor is left with poor quality of choice (starve or be a wage slave) while capital can simple hire the next wage slave who will acceed to it's demands. It is a relationship that is fundamentally skewed in favor of capital.

That's crazy talk. I have never once in my life considered my wage to be non-negotiable. If I don't get the pay I want, I go on down the road and see what the next guy has to offer. None of these negotiations is happening in the vacuum you think they do. If Taco Bell puts up a sign paying $15 an hour, do you think any Taco Johns employees will apply? If not, why?

I keep saying this over and over but I just don't think SJWs have the capability to grasp it. The problem is the bargaining position of employees is shit right now. We have too many unskilled workers and not enough skilled workers. But the problem is not caused by "mean" employers. They have always tried to pay the least, and they always will (in science talk, that's called a constant). A minimum wage is a solution only for the very bottom, which makes up very few people. Meanwhile, other workers are also disadvantaged at the bargaining table, workers who make much more. The solution is to let the economy grow. We are no better off if set the minimum wage at $500 than we are now. We need to create an environment where workers are in demand. Piling every increasing financial burdens upon businesses, in a down economy, was a really bad idea. And now we are paying the price.

[Endus]

Endus, buddy. What are you talking about with this bit?

Without supporting potential workers at a comfortable standard of living regardless of whether they work or not, "working" isn't a voluntary choice, it's an obligation you're forced into against your preference, and the need to have that job to avoid suffering that hardship will coerce potential workers into accepting offers that aren't as well-paying or whose standards are below what the worker would prefer.

It's like if the only food that poor people could afford had spots of rot in it. You're saying "hey, they voluntarily bought that food, so that's fine!" The rest of us are saying maybe we shouldn't be selling rotten food, period. That poor people will buy semi-rotten food to avoid literally starving is not a defense.

[Glorious Leader]

I mean, a graph was already linked in this thread that shows while the gap is increasing, the lower end is increasing also. So if the complaint is that the middle class has it better now than they did then, but the issue is their growth is not matching that of the wealthy, I'm just not feeling the outrage. If everyone is better off, to me, that's good.

- - - Updated - - -



That's crazy talk. I have never once in my life considered my wage to be non-negotiable. If I don't get the pay I want, I go on down the road and see what the next guy has to offer. None of these negotiations in happening in the vacuum you think they do. If Taco Bell puts up a sign paying $15 an hour, do you think any Taco Johns employees will apply? If not, why?

*Sigh* And then while your busy going to the next job your children are starving. The distribution of power in your stated example is so backwards. You may be privileged enough to tell that employer to fuck off but not everyone is, in fact arguable very few people are. Rather what's more likely to happen is, you go for a job, advise you'd like x pay they laugh in your face and so does the next guy and the next guy until you finally accept what they are willing to pay you or starve. This is hardly a voluntary or willing agreement. It once again ignores the QUALITY of choice being offered to individuals and simple states well they are free to choose another boss. They are not however free TO NOT HAVE A BOSS. It's roughly akin to being held hostage at gun point and then having the criminal claim well he gave me his wallet..

[Gestopft]

We have no growth and high unemployment. That's really bad. New jobs come from growth, not minimum wage increases, not benevolent wealthy people, not taxation. Does that answer your question? I really don't know what you mean by wanting an answer. /shrug

You didn't answer the question. If wealthy investors are so important to growth, and we have the wealthiest people in the world, why don't we have growth? Why aren't our wealthy people growing the economy the way you implied they should be doing?

And as to minimum wage increases:
-people make more money
-people put more money into economy
-businesses make more money
-oh look, growth

(the idea that prices would rise at the same rate as wages is demonstrably false- minimum wages increases have always resulted in a gain in purchasing power)

[Endus]

That's crazy talk. I have never once in my life considered my wage to be non-negotiable. If I don't get the pay I want, I go on down the road and see what the next guy has to offer. None of these negotiations is happening in the vacuum you think they do. If Taco Bell puts up a sign paying $15 an hour, do you think any Taco Johns employees will apply? If not, why?

We're talking about the lowest levels of wages. If you have in-demand skills, you can negotiate a fair price for your labor, since those skills are marketable. As long as unemployment is above 0%, unskilled labor is not a marketable skill, and those workers are going to have to accept whatever offers they're given, or they'll go to someone else. That's WHY we have minimum wage laws.

Hell, this is a big reason I support basic income systems; it takes disincentivized workers out of the worker pool, since they can sit home, meaning that employers have to make their job offers appealing to people who would rather sit at home. THAT is what free markets look like; if your price isn't worth me selling, I don't sell.

[Cthulhu 2020]

But employers do not operate in a bubble now, and they never have. The way the system is supposed to work, is you are such and awesome employee that other businesses want to hire you. People who hang around in a minimum wage job for years and years are not even trying. I don't know where this new notion on the left started, where we assume every employer is the ONLY employer the employee has access to. If you have a robust economy, with non-Obama levels of growth, the plight of the poor would be the FIRST to benefit.

- - - Updated - - -



You are leaving out the best thing about capitalism, and the thing that makes it have a point: competition. Sure, if you are the owner of DeBeers, you have no concerns. But for non-cartel/non-monopolies, the check and balance to the shitty employer, is the other employers and their need to hire as well. If your economy isn't growing, and you have high unemployment, that's a really big problem. The solution to this really big problem is to grow the economy and get out of of the way of growth.

Once again, this "Get more skills" line might work if you're talking to an individual, it does not fix THE ENTIRE ECONOMY. We're looking at how the minimum wage does not even pay a bare subsistence living in most areas of the country now, and your line is "Get more skills!" If everyone goes to school, makes themselves more marketable, that just raises the minimum expectation employers have of their employees because it's the new norm, it doesn't fix what the people at the bottom are being paid.

[Deleted]

Wow.... why is this subject such a hot item?

[Glorious Leader]

We're talking about the lowest levels of wages. If you have in-demand skills, you can negotiate a fair price for your labor, since those skills are marketable. As long as unemployment is above 0%, unskilled labor is not a marketable skill, and those workers are going to have to accept whatever offers they're given, or they'll go to someone else. That's WHY we have minimum wage laws.

Hell, this is a big reason I support basic income systems; it takes disincentivized workers out of the worker pool, since they can sit home, meaning that employers have to make their job offers appealing to people who would rather sit at home. THAT is what free markets look like; if your price isn't worth me selling, I don't sell.

and thats why it will never happen. It's one stop on the way to showing people that nobody needs a boss.

[Annoying]

We have no growth and high unemployment. That's really bad. New jobs come from growth, not minimum wage increases, not benevolent wealthy people, not taxation. Does that answer your question? I really don't know what you mean by wanting an answer. /shrug

To your other point, yeah I agree. Stagnant economies suck. Pretty much everyone knows that. There is a reason Jimmy Carter is called the worst economic president ever: stagnant economy. (his was still better than Obama's though, somehow)

To the larger point, yes we should treat people fairly. But mistreating people is not why our economy sucks right now.

And what causes stagnant economies? Lack of participation. Don't have the money to buy stuff. And saying that Obama's economy is worse than Carter's is hilarious. As if the economy under Obama has been anywhere as bad as the 1979 energy crisis. As if our unemployment problems happened under Obama and not GWB.

[unfilteredJW]

Wow.... why is this subject such a hot item?

It's almost like it's a problem that has been snowballing for 30 years and most of us are getting real tired of the bootstraps rhetoric instead of working towards making the lives of our neighbors less shitty. It'll suck for those that find their only worth from how much better they are doing than the guy below them, but there's very little tears being shed for these types.

[Endus]

and thats why it will never happen. It's one stop on the way to showing people that nobody needs a boss.

Not sure how that's even an argument. Why does anyone "need a boss"?

[Tijuana]

You didn't answer the question. If wealthy investors are so important to growth, and we have the wealthiest people in the world, why don't we have growth? Why aren't our wealthy people growing the economy the way you implied they should be doing?

And as to minimum wage increases:
-people make more money
-people put more money into economy
-businesses make more money
-oh look, growth

(the idea that prices would rise at the same rate as wages is demonstrably false- minimum wages increases have always resulted in a gain in purchasing power)

Oh. Well then. Where can we start with this?

Ok so, wealth doesn't cause growth. I'm not sure why you think that, or why you think I think that. I don't even know how that would work.

As to why I personally think we have such shitty growth? There is no doubt in my mind that Obamacare was implemented at the second worst moment in history that it could possible have been implement in. Putting greater financial burden on business, when it was reeling from the aftershock of the housing bubble bursting, was really dumb. In addition to direct cost of Obamacare, businesses also had to absorb the regulatory aspects of the bill. It was just a really bad time in history to make workers more expensive, so that they could buy more expensive health care, that covers less. Sure, there never would have been a good time to do that, but this was probably the second worst time, behind the Great Depression. There has to be some reason this is the second slowest recovery in history, and that is where I would place my bet.

TL;DR Government elected SJWs need to stop trying to get "payback" on business, and let it do what it does so we can all get back to work.

- - - Updated - - -

We're talking about the lowest levels of wages. If you have in-demand skills, you can negotiate a fair price for your labor, since those skills are marketable. As long as unemployment is above 0%, unskilled labor is not a marketable skill, and those workers are going to have to accept whatever offers they're given, or they'll go to someone else. That's WHY we have minimum wage laws.

Hell, this is a big reason I support basic income systems; it takes disincentivized workers out of the worker pool, since they can sit home, meaning that employers have to make their job offers appealing to people who would rather sit at home. THAT is what free markets look like; if your price isn't worth me selling, I don't sell.

I agree with a lot of this but, what of the other workers? A tipped bargaining position affects all workers, not just the poorest. What you propose is a band-aid, and perhaps we should apply it. But what I propose is a solution.

[Glorious Leader]

Not sure how that's even an argument. Why does anyone "need a boss"?

They don't that's the point. If labor is "undisciplined" by having things like a basic income guarantee or just better economic conditions in general then those people are more likely to tell their masters to fuck off and what's more because they don't have to spend hours of the day toiling at their jobs their more likely to sit around think about their current society and question the relationships that exist within it. So labor must be disciplined (through the reserve army, through poverty, through the state) in order to protect capital and reinforce the idea that everyone has to have a boss.

I'll quote game of thrones. Tyrion said it.



"The masters cannot let Mereen succeed. Because if Mereen succeeds, a city without slavery, a cit without masters it proves that no one needs a master"

[Tijuana]

Once again, this "Get more skills" line might work if you're talking to an individual, it does not fix THE ENTIRE ECONOMY. We're looking at how the minimum wage does not even pay a bare subsistence living in most areas of the country now, and your line is "Get more skills!" If everyone goes to school, makes themselves more marketable, that just raises the minimum expectation employers have of their employees because it's the new norm, it doesn't fix what the people at the bottom are being paid.

Batman, you are so partisan that you always assume everyone else is also. I have been saying for pages and pages that the issue is bigger than minimum wage. I have been saying for pages and pages economic stagnation is the real issue. You took a nuanced point that was a rebuttal to another nuanced point, and are trying to extrapolate out to a position I don't even hold, all the while my actual position is in print, repeatedly, in the same thread you are reading. GG

- - - Updated - - -

Wow.... why is this subject such a hot item?

There are a lot of people saying really stupid things, and for some reason the rest of us haven't figured out yet that it's a waste of time. But, that is any thread I guess.

- - - Updated - - -

And what causes stagnant economies? Lack of participation. Don't have the money to buy stuff. And saying that Obama's economy is worse than Carter's is hilarious. As if the economy under Obama has been anywhere as bad as the 1979 energy crisis. As if our unemployment problems happened under Obama and not GWB.

It's factually the lowest net GDP growth of any president in history. He can't even beat out the 4 year guys. /shrug

I mean, if your claim is that the 70's recession was worse than the current one, I don't think you will find too many who agree with that.

[Endus]

I agree with a lot of this but, what of the other workers? A tipped bargaining position affects all workers, not just the poorest. What you propose is a band-aid, and perhaps we should apply it. But what I propose is a solution.

The baseline of negotiation in a given market is the market. If an unskilled laborer makes X, and your skills make you worth Y more, then you can negotiate a salary of X+Y.

If X is then changed to X+20, then your skills haven't changed, and you can negotiate (X+20)+Y, because that baseline changed.

If the cheapest ice cream on the boardwalk is $2, but mine's awesome and I can charge $3, then if the cheap guy can raise his price to $3 and stay in business, my higher-quality product means I should be able to raise my price to $4 and maintain market share.

[Gestopft]

Ok so, wealth doesn't cause growth. I'm not sure why you think that, or why you think I think that. I don't even know how that would work.

As to why I personally think we have such shitty growth? There is no doubt in my mind that Obamacare was implemented at the second worst moment in history that it could possible have been implement in. Putting greater financial burden on business, when it was reeling from the aftershock of the housing bubble bursting, was really dumb. In addition to direct cost of Obamacare, businesses also had to absorb the regulatory aspects of the bill. It was just a really bad time in history to make workers more expensive, so that they could buy more expensive health care, that covers less. Sure, there never would have been a good time to do that, but this was probably the second worst time, behind the Great Depression. There has to be some reason this is the second slowest recovery in history, and that is where I would place my bet.

We can all agree stagnation is the problem- let's talk solutions. According to you, where does growth come from and how do we increase it?

[Sorrior]

I mean, a graph was already linked in this thread that shows while the gap is increasing, the lower end is increasing also. So if the complaint is that the middle class has it better now than they did then, but the issue is their growth is not matching that of the wealthy, I'm just not feeling the outrage. If everyone is better off, to me, that's good.

- - - Updated - - -



That's crazy talk. I have never once in my life considered my wage to be non-negotiable. If I don't get the pay I want, I go on down the road and see what the next guy has to offer. None of these negotiations is happening in the vacuum you think they do. If Taco Bell puts up a sign paying $15 an hour, do you think any Taco Johns employees will apply? If not, why?

I keep saying this over and over but I just don't think SJWs have the capability to grasp it. The problem is the bargaining position of employees is shit right now. We have too many unskilled workers and not enough skilled workers. But the problem is not caused by "mean" employers. They have always tried to pay the least, and they always will (in science talk, that's called a constant). A minimum wage is a solution only for the very bottom, which makes up very few people. Meanwhile, other workers are also disadvantaged at the bargaining table, workers who make much more. The solution is to let the economy grow. We are no better off if set the minimum wage at $500 than we are now. We need to create an environment where workers are in demand. Piling every increasing financial burdens upon businesses, in a down economy, was a really bad idea. And now we are paying the price.

I am completely opposed to your views here abd am also extremely anti SJW in fact in several subjects Endus and I are on totally opposite sides and I shake my head wondering the f.

On this issue we agree however.

You are seeing politics as binary and nit really looking outside your bubble

- - - Updated - - -

We're talking about the lowest levels of wages. If you have in-demand skills, you can negotiate a fair price for your labor, since those skills are marketable. As long as unemployment is above 0%, unskilled labor is not a marketable skill, and those workers are going to have to accept whatever offers they're given, or they'll go to someone else. That's WHY we have minimum wage laws.

Hell, this is a big reason I support basic income systems; it takes disincentivized workers out of the worker pool, since they can sit home, meaning that employers have to make their job offers appealing to people who would rather sit at home. THAT is what free markets look like; if your price isn't worth me selling, I don't sell.

Another perk coukd be more philosophy and other similar things. Artists cab create art philosophers can think anf ponder scientists ir amateur inventors can invent and research

Full democracy could become possible
Frankly without the NEED to work alot of near dead fields could open up

[Endus]

Another perk coukd be more philosophy and other similar things. Artists cab create art philosophers can think anf ponder scientists ir amateur inventors can invent and research

Full democracy could become possible
Frankly without the NEED to work alot of near dead fields could open up

Well, yes. There are a lot of other secondary advantages to a basic income system. I'm just saying it's entirely defensible on the economics of it alone. Which is important, since not everyone cares about those secondary impacts.

[Hana Song]

I don't understand why people care so much about it if not everyone has the same amount of money, work harder if you want more money

[Vynny]

I honestly don't like the term because it implies that wealth should be equal which is just ridiculous, but successful capitalism relies on having a strong majority with enough buying power to not only earn ends meet but also enough to buy some luxuries in order to keep money circulating through the economy. Most of the time I see it, it's used as a term to encompass the issues involving the declining middle class, but it's really broad and inaccurate for what it's used to describe.