Inequality in America is getting worse according to top economists

[Jerot]

there is fatal flaw in this reasoning - random idiots selling sandwiches in mcdonalds will bring company maybe double his salary profit - a really good specialis will bring in company 20x profit of his salary that is already 10x bigger then salary of dude selling sandwiches

example of small company - production workers prodeced a products that if sold will bring in 10k pure profit to owner (after deduction of all the costs, marketing, salaries etc etc) - good manager negociated 5 % discount on mateirals that were used in proces of production and brought in extra 10k of profit - thing is those workers worked hard whole month - that manager negociated hard for 1-2 hours - and brought in the same pure profit - how can you claim the jobs they do are equal - you simply cannot.

I'm not saying all jobs are equal at all, I'm saying the baseline, if you work a full-time job, it should pay enough to cover basic living expenses. Whats so hard to understand about that? It's fine that higher risk/higher skilled positions are paid more.

ofc - if they had such skilsl they would change that job on spot. most peopel are simply incompetent morons and thats their own problem.

good employees dont have any trouble finding work - most of time the moment they quit their position there is couple other companies trying to recruit them on spot.

I don't even know why I'm bothering to debate this with someone who can't even spellcheck their own post. But if you had any real world experience you would know this is bullshit. I know people who specifically trained for IT positions and you know where they are now? Ones working airport security and the other is a manager at home depot. All the skill in the world won't get you a job if the positions are already filled. Even to get those jobs they had to apply around town for weeks/months, its ridiculously competitive.

A degree doesn't guarantee you a job, and if you find the job first, it probably won't be there by the time you get the degree.

[petej0]

I may have phrased that wrong, how can everyone who is working a minimum wage job move into a better position? If all these jobs just existed, why are they not currently being filled? If the job market works on supply and demand, and there is demand for laborers who are more "skillful" than minimum wage workers, then why aren't minimum wage workers moving up the ladder?

Not all will be able to. Some could create new ventures that would hire others. But there are many jobs unfilled for many reasons. Some we have to fill with H1B Visas and illegal labor. You can argue that the illegal labor jobs are under paid and I have two points. Why is it ok for an illegal to work underpaid? and Two, if those jobs would go unfilled by illegals, then the wages would have to increase to a point where Americans would do them.

A job is a job, if you are doing a service that is required, putting in your 8-10 hours a day. Why shouldnt you be entitled to making a living? What happens when someone gets a new job that pays more, the old job doesnt go away, someone has to fill it. So it becomes the new persons problem?

Entitled? What living? How much do you determine is enough for a living? Now we are getting into other areas. A job can not pay more then what the employer can make from someone doing it. If someone moves up the ladder that job is filled by another low skilled person until they acquire enough skills to move up.

Okay, then what happens when all those "better" jobs are filled and all we have is minimum wage to choose from. And then even those jobs become highly contested. Everyone is just supposed to work two jobs to get by while hunting for a "better position" and learning new skills?

I think that is where we are right now. What is happening is minimum wage jobs demand more and automation takes them over and the whole sector is unemployed. Happened to Bank Tellers, happened to telephone operators, etc..etc..

Do you really think people only work minimum wage jobs because they dont have the skills to apply elsewhere? Some people have to take whats available just to survive.

I agree, it may be temporary, but those people dont end up in those minimum wage jobs for 20-30 years.

[wheresmywoft]

Well nobody really knows what the limit is because nobody knows what could be introduced into the market which hasn't yet been invented. Twenty-five years ago nobody thought, "Man someone really needs to make a good social media website". The market didn't exist for such a thing. Nobody knew the value of it and nobody had any idea what it would be worth. It was basically something that people wanted that they didn't even know they wanted.

So if you consider things like that, it seems like there isn't really a limit on potential jobs. People just have to find something to do that people want. That's how new jobs are created.

25 years ago even if someone had the idea for a good social media website it would not have been possible. Because the rest of the support technologies and infrastructure was not in place.

So if you consider things like that, there really is a limit on potential jobs at any point in time.

On top of this, your solution may work at an individual level and would fail at a systemic level if everyone were to attempt to do so. Because the next generation would now consider skill 'y' that everyone trained for to be the 'I can get 200 of them at will, why do they deserve an increase in pay' type job.

All you're doing is kicking the problem to your offspring's generation.

[Jeezy911]

I feel like it's a common misconception. People often equate income inequality to people being worse off than they were in the past. This is not the case. The average American is far better off and has a much higher quality of life than the average American from 20 years ago.

That is actually a great point. I would rather live poor today with the internet and stuff than pretty much any time pre 1980.

- - - Updated - - -

Six years of a GoP Congress was a rather effective roadblock against anything he wanted to get done on the economic front. He never even got to sign an increase to the minimum wage.

So increasing the minimum wage will fix the wage gap?

[Masark]

So increasing the minimum wage will fix the wage gap?

Fix, no, help, yes.

[Stormspark]

A job is a job, if you are doing a service that is required, putting in your 8-10 hours a day. Why shouldnt you be entitled to making a living? What happens when someone gets a new job that pays more, the old job doesnt go away, someone has to fill it. So it becomes the new persons problem? Okay, then what happens when all those "better" jobs are filled and all we have is minimum wage to choose from. And then even those jobs become highly contested. Everyone is just supposed to work two jobs to get by while hunting for a "better position" and learning new skills?

Do you really think people only work minimum wage jobs because they dont have the skills to apply elsewhere? Some people have to take whats available just to survive.

This. Another thing people don't realize. Say Mcdonald's never pays enough for anyone to make even a basic living. Say everyone "gets skilled enough" to get better jobs. (This is obviously a scenario I pulled out of my ass but it's an example.) What happens to Mcdonald's? Do they just go out of business? Do people REALLY think a company can survive if it only has "unskilled workers that don't make enough money to live on"? It's ridiculous.

I'm not saying burger flippers need to be able to buy BMW's or anything. But EVERYONE with a full time job should be able to make enough to pay rent and basic essentials. Cost of living has increased drastically, wages have not.

[Glorious Leader]

I'm not saying all jobs are equal at all, I'm saying the baseline, if you work a full-time job, it should pay enough to cover basic living expenses. Whats so hard to understand about that? It's fine that higher risk/higher skilled positions are paid more.



I don't even know why I'm bothering to debate this with someone who can't even spellcheck their own post. But if you had any real world experience you would know this is bullshit. I know people who specifically trained for IT positions and you know where they are now? Ones working airport security and the other is a manager at home depot. All the skill in the world won't get you a job if the positions are already filled. Even to get those jobs they had to apply around town for weeks/months, its ridiculously competitive.

A degree doesn't guarantee you a job, and if you find the job first, it probably won't be there by the time you get the degree.

IT is an especialy bad field for automization. Redundancies are automated all the time usually through script. When you write a script to automate you no longer need that person. Couple this with off shoring and moving operations to more and more cloud based solutions you end up with fewer and fewer jobs.

Really whata happening in IT is very illustrative. Companies must show a profit each quarter. They either do this through growth or effeciency. Well growth has its limits, markets do get saturated. That leaves effeciency. Fire people reduce overhead by use of tech and dumping more labor onto a smaller force of workers who have to work that much harder. The average work week should be in decline...m

[Vash The Stampede]

And the fact that people have to work less for survival is actually a really good thing. It should free men to pursue their own dreams and goals. If yyou told your ancestors from even 100 years ago about all the wonders and innovations they would think that you would all live as kings. Instead people live in misery and squalor and the only reason is that the gains from these developments have been spread out so inequitable that it leaves a few with multitudes while multitudes have few.

If I had free education and time I would go back and learn genetics. That's a new exciting new helpful field that humanity would benefit. Unfortunately I don't live in NY. Or for that matter Australia, which I hear you get paid to get education? Someone from Australia correct me if I'm wrong.

there is obvious flaw in the design of basic income - in order to put taxes on companies and automatization you need someone to buy prodcts of those companies - people with basic income wont buy jack shit so the most obvious question is who will buy their products ? the working people ? so emploees of the company will buy products they produce in order to feed lazy scums leaving of basic income ?

Basic Income needs to be done with a few other things like Basic housing and Basic food. That way the few hundred dollars people receive can still be spent on purchasing things. And if people do want the latest Playstation or a big screen TV, then they need to actually work. But the idea is that if you offer a job, it had better offer more than Basic Income. Right now we have minimum wage, which companies do abuse.

whole concept ifs seriously fucked up . and wont happen for decadeds untill robots will be able to replace all jobs.

I give it 5-10 years before we NEED basic income. If we get it or not depends on the government and lobbying. But even 200 years into the future there's going to be jobs, just very few. There's a limit a machine can do what a human can do. The good news it's mostly entertainment, science, and engineering.

- - - Updated - - -

So increasing the minimum wage will fix the wage gap?

To fix inequality you need to do more. The $15 minimum wage could hurt small businesses, which are not owned by super wealthy 1%ers. Taxing the wealthy and redistributing the wealth through social services is a good method to fix the gap. Like spending the money on education, basic income, and etc.

Really whata happening in IT is very illustrative. Companies must show a profit each quarter. They either do this through growth or effeciency. Well growth has its limits, markets do get saturated. That leaves effeciency. Fire people reduce overhead by use of tech and dumping more labor onto a smaller force of workers who have to work that much harder. The average work week should be in decline...m

The average work week in America is very high because of this. Think there was a man in the news who committed suicide due to this. Constantly under stress, afraid to lose his job, and worked long hours. We really need to shorten the average work week in America, cause companies do take advantage of this.

[kamuimac]

I give it 5-10 years before we NEED basic income. If we get it or not depends on the government and lobbying. But even 200 years into the future there's going to be jobs, just very few. There's a limit a machine can do what a human can do. The good news it's mostly entertainment, science, and engineering.
.

cool story - only who will work or lazy bums living of basic income ? money dont appear from thin air - someone has to work for them - who will ? will you work you butt of while your neighbour do nothing only play computer games all the time while state provides him with home food and $ ? will your work worth magicaly mulitply x 20 so that you can support lazy bums like that ? hint - it wont thats why stop dreaming that basic income will support all needs .

what is more liekly to happen people with it will live in ghettos in tiny rooms 2x2 m^2 and be on border of starvation .

- - - Updated - - -

This. Another thing people don't realize. Say Mcdonald's never pays enough for anyone to make even a basic living. Say everyone "gets skilled enough" to get better jobs. (This is obviously a scenario I pulled out of my ass but it's an example.) What happens to Mcdonald's? Do they just go out of business? Do people REALLY think a company can survive if it only has "unskilled workers that don't make enough money to live on"? It's ridiculous.

I'm not saying burger flippers need to be able to buy BMW's or anything. But EVERYONE with a full time job should be able to make enough to pay rent and basic essentials. Cost of living has increased drastically, wages have not.

they are make enough to pay a rent and have baic essentials - just not in apartment that has 60 m^2 only in one that has 20-30m^2 or hare that 60m^2 with 2-3 other people , they have enough for basic essentials - only basic essentials doesnt mean having newest model of iphone, new BMW 50 inch TV etc etc . basic essential means have cheap cloths and cheap food enough to not die from starvation. thats what basic essential is - basic - of you want more do to real job. its really that simple.

what those people want isnt "basic essentials" - they want enough to lead decent life - and to do so you need real job not burger flipping. if they really desire so much to work in gastornomy they should o to culinary school and learn to be chefs - not brger flippers for 30 years.

[Sorrior]

When you cut taxes on the "rich" (this includes big corporations) it allows them the capital to hire more employees and raise wages for their employees. This is also called reinvesting in the business to make the business grow. It helps everyone, including the stakeholders of the business.

Also lowering taxes on small businesses and reducing red tape allows them to do the same, just on a smaller scale.

Simple economic sense. Hence, the "bottom 50%" see their wages increase and increased jobs.

Called trickle down aka economics for dummies and does NOT work because instead it gets hoarded. It COULD work if ceos and businessmen were not more prone to psychopathy and lack of empathy.

Also this very thing is what started our decline. The dates align perfectly

[Vash The Stampede]

cool story - only who will work or lazy bums living of basic income?

The idea is that your job has to be better pay than Basic Income. It has to be worth it for someone to want your job. The incentive we have today is, do you want to be able to buy groceries? Do you not want to be homeless begging for money?

Employers don't have to pay well cause the market is now flooded with more than qualified workers. People very willing to take your low paying job cause they don't want to die. Yet 50% of Americans make less than $16,000 a year as a result of this.

money dont appear from thin air - someone has to work for them - who will ?

Technically it is from thin air. The US dollar isn't tied to gold anymore. What gives bitcoin value? It's digital currency, which is something literally born from nothing. The government could just print more money and hand it to people, but that devalues currency, and more of it will flow to the wealthy.

will you work you butt of while your neighbour do nothing only play computer games all the time while state provides him with home food and $ ? will your work worth magicaly mulitply x 20 so that you can support lazy bums like that ? hint - it wont thats why stop dreaming that basic income will support all needs .

I'd have no problem with this. In fact lots of people do this and get paid. Twitch steamers and etc get paid to play games all day. Part of the future is that lots of people are going to find themselves with a lot of free time.

what is more liekly to happen people with it will live in ghettos in tiny rooms 2x2 m^2 and be on border of starvation .

Only if we do it your way to satisfy the wealthy overlords.

[kamuimac]

T
Employers don't have to pay well cause the market is now flooded with more than qualified workers. People very willing to take your low paying job cause they don't want to die. Yet 50% of Americans make less than $16,000 a year as a result of this.

thats complete myth though - but statment like this is beautifuly proving that you never had to look for skilled employees yourself - yes the market is flooded by people with college/university diplomas that they got by barely passing any example on C , barely learned anything dont have any actual skills or proffesional knowledge and expect to be welcomed with open arms - its riduiculous.

i can give you very good exmple - 2 months ago i had to look for a skilled mechanic for our company - thing is most of those who came in had a knowledge that stopped in early 90ties - and in nowadays world/industry mechanics cant only know how to operate hammer and screwdriver - good mechanic needs to have at least basic skills to work with elecric parts, has basic knowledge of machine programming and preferably be interested in basic engeereing knowledge etc etc - just 2 hands willing to keep a hammer isnt enough to work with modern machines - world moved on and some people stayed left behind

its the huge flaw in most of educational systems - children are pampered and kept in bubble , spend most of their teens in blissful ignorance not knowing what world really requires from them - they go to univeristies but they dont learn there - they think that uni is a big binge drinking phase that will give them diploma and the moment they finish it emploeyers will kill themslevs so they joined their company - but world doesnt work like that.

instead this teacher should teach them from younger years that world is unfair cruel place and if they want to succed they need to fight very hard , never stop learning and developing themselves and most important - that they dont learn for parents or teacher - they learn for themselves to have a good comfortable life in future. and if they dont - well then only thing that awaits them is burger flipping in mcdonalds.

[Deleted]

Except you've been doing that for close to 40 years.

None of that has happened.

Hey maybe 50 is the charm.

[kamuimac]

Only if we do it your way to satisfy the wealthy overlords.

there will be always welthy overlords - and law will be always created by rich people for rich people

but its nice dreaming about utopia i bet

[Docturphil]

If the rich are getting richer, then there's less money for everyone else. The government can devalue it or increase its value by putting more or less money into circulation. But ultimately money is finite. Money needs to circulate in order for the population to be happy. The problem is the rich are holding onto their money for far too long. Taxing the wealthy has usually been the method to circulate this money, but the rich have gotten smart and now change laws in their favor.

Incorrect.

First of all, if the rich are getting richer that does not automatically mean that the poor are getting poorer.

It could mean one of three things:

1. The rich are gaining wealth while the middle and lower classes continue to make the same.

2. The rich are gaining wealth while the middle and lower classes are also gaining wealth.

3. The rich are gaining wealth while the middle and lower classes are losing wealth.

The third possibility, which you're suggesting is the only one, is the most obvious possibility, but it's based on the assumption that there is a finite amount of money which cannot increase. That assumption is false. I'll give you an example.

Let's say you have a country with only two people in it; Bob and John. Bob owns a farm and John works on the farm. Bob makes $7/hour and John makes $3/hour. At some point Bob decides to invest in more advanced farming equipment and as a result he increases his product by 200%. Bob takes most of the profits, but some of it is passed to John. Now Bob makes $25/hour and John makes $5/hour. Bob's income increased significantly more than John's did and there is now greater income inequality between Bob and John, but they're both still making more money.

See how that works? You can increase GDP, increase income inequality, and everyone can still make more money and have better quality of life.

And also, inflation keeps money in circulation. No one is going to just sit on money because it loses value. The money moves around and is invested in various things. So, no. Rich people holding onto their money isn't really an issue.

Ultimately we need to tax the rich more so than before, to support more social programs.

More taxes and more social programs is not the solution. Jobs is the solution. The goal should be to make society as productive as possible. You don't do that with socialism. Right now, if the general population were to have the option to work or not we would probably see a collapse similar to Venezuela.

That said, I believe socialism and social programs have their place. We obviously don't want people starving to death. But social programs need to be limited. When social programs begin to negatively effect productivity it becomes a real problem.

The ultimate solution is Basic Income. Which is a great solution as people won't be stressed to choose any job available like McDonald's. Nobody wants to work at fast food joints, or as a cashier, or as a loader or unloader. Certainly don't wanna do it all day, everyday. With Basic Income, jobs would have to compete against that. Because if there's more unemployed people, then companies will pay less cause they know there's more people needing work. This is why Trump is president and why Brexit is sorta happening. Too many people competing for too few jobs.

We're not ready for basic income. And even when we are people should still be able to find jobs. But if we get to a point where automation can essentially sustain us by providing food, shelter, and medical attention then we can look into basic income.

[Shadowferal]

If no one filled those shitty jobs the wealthy would find a way...

[Vash The Stampede]

i can give you very good exmple - 2 months ago i had to look for a skilled mechanic for our company - thing is most of those who came in had a knowledge that stopped in early 90ties - and in nowadays world/industry mechanics cant only know how to operate hammer and screwdriver - good mechanic needs to have at least basic skills to work with elecric parts, has basic knowledge of machine programming and preferably be interested in basic engeereing knowledge etc etc - just 2 hands willing to keep a hammer isnt enough to work with modern machines - world moved on and some people stayed left behind

Don't know what kind of mechanic you need but cars today are very specialized. You need really good tools and a scanner just to repair a car. Machine programming and basic engineering isn't a needed qualification, but having the motor skills to unscrew and reach certain parts is. You have 2 kinds of mechanics, a parts mechanics and someone who knows how to rebuild a car. Unfortunately not everyone has had the pleasure to rebuild a car, nor the time. Not to mention things like specializing in transmissions and emissions. Most mechanics are parts mechanics, as in they are only good for pulling parts out and putting them in.

instead this teacher should teach them from younger years that world is unfair cruel place and if they want to succed they need to fight very hard , never stop learning and developing themselves and most important - that they dont learn for parents or teacher - they learn for themselves to have a good comfortable life in future. and if they dont - well then only thing that awaits them is burger flipping in mcdonalds.

Why do they need to see the world as cruel? If the robots do all the boring labor, then why shouldn't everyone benefit? I'm in favor of burger flipping robots, but the only reason they haven't been put into every McDonald's is because minimum wage is cheaper. People with degrees certainly don't wanna flip burgers.

Incorrect.

First of all, if the rich are getting richer that does not automatically mean that the poor are getting poorer.

It could mean one of three things:

1. The rich are gaining wealth while the middle and lower classes continue to make the same.

2. The rich are gaining wealth while the middle and lower classes are also gaining wealth.

3. The rich are gaining wealth while the middle and lower classes are losing wealth.

1. Is a problem cause inflation.
2. Isn't happening statistically.
3. Is the same as 1.

More taxes and more social programs is not the solution. Jobs is the solution. The goal should be to make society as productive as possible. You don't do that with socialism. Right now, if the general population were to have the option to work or not we would probably see a collapse similar to Venezuela.

Venezuela didn't collapse due to socialism. I wonder how many people who write open source got paid? Not many. Even though they aren't paid, they are still being productive.

We're not ready for basic income. And even when we are people should still be able to find jobs. But if we get to a point where automation can essentially sustain us by providing food, shelter, and medical attention then we can look into basic income.

Food is already very automated and you can't automate shelter. It's a home, it doesn't need automation, unless you count the robot vacuum. Medical attention should be universal anyway. Most other 1st world countries do this now.

- - - Updated - - -

there will be always welthy overlords - and law will be always created by rich people for rich people

but its nice dreaming about utopia i bet

One day nearly everyone is going to be on basic income. In fact the only way to get paid is directly from the government, unless you exchange goods. At this point wealthy people are very few in numbers. You could own a store that is manned by Androids who operate 24/7 and don't get paid. Nearly everything will change, including how we package and recycle. Nearly everything in the future is modular to promote upgrades so as to not create a lot of E-Waste. You walk into a store and refill a bag that you hook into your home to dispense drinks. This is just the natural evolution of the world.

Like it or not, money only has value cause of our imagination. What's the difference between monopoly money and real money? We all agree that real money has value. If there are nearly no jobs and everything is automated then wealth can't exist. At least not the wealth we have today. As a entertainer, researcher, and engineer you'll obviously have access to luxuries than a person staying home all day playing games has, but you wouldn't deny that person the ability to live comfortably.

[Docturphil]

1. Is a problem cause inflation.
2. Isn't happening statistically.
3. Is the same as 1.

No, 3 is not the same as 1. Your income remaining the same is not the same as your income decreasing. That's pretty basic.

And you're claiming it's not happening statistically, but what is wealth? Is wealth just a dollar amount adjusted for inflation? Or is wealth quality of life? Which one are they measuring?

You can keep the money. I'll take quality of life thank you very much.

Food is already very automated and you can't automate shelter. It's a home, it doesn't need automation, unless you count the robot vacuum. Medical attention should be universal anyway. Most other 1st world countries do this now.

You can automate the building of shelter. Theoretically you could create a giant 3D printer capable of building houses.

[Iamanerd]

Nope, I lived in a very liberal state (Connecticut) where even as a business owner I was "treading water". Between higher costs for food, insurance, electricity, heat, rent, etc, I was treading water personally netting anywhere between 50-65k a year. I only worked between 7-8 months out of the year because my industry is seasonal. Was sole provider in my house hold, also responsible for a 470$ a month alimony payment.

We moved to wisconsin and our cost of living is about 1/3 of it what it was in Connecticut. Currently, our mortgage (home/landlord insurance included), utilities, cell phones, car insurance, food budget, is just under a 1000$ a month.

It doesn't cost a lot to move. You can literally get a bus ticket almost anywhere in this country on the cheap. If I were just by myself and making the same move from Connecticut. This is how much it would have cost me for travel.

From ledyard Connecticut to New York
http://locations.greyhound.com/bus-r...ny#fare-search 15$

From New York to Chicago
http://www.gotobus.com/new-york-to-chicago-bus/ 55$

Chicago to Fon Du Lac, WI ( or appleton same cost)

http://locations.greyhound.com/bus-r...wi#fare-search 25$
http://locations.greyhound.com/bus-r...wi#fare-search


Room on Craigslist
https://appleton.craigslist.org/roo/6095823853.html 80-100$ a week (First month) 240$-400$

Food budget for 4 weeks (2200 calories) 125$

Total cost to move from Connecticut to Wisconsin, secure 4 weeks of lodgings and food= 620$

Kwik Trip offers full time + overtime + starts at around 11$ and change an hour, 12 for 3rd shift.

600$ is not a lot of money. Even if you made 0$ in 2016, chances are you'd still get at least 500$ from a federal tax return file.

- - - Updated - - -



I used to live in CT so I know how fucked you feel

I'm actually quite content with CT, I hold a degree in both Computer Science and Nuclear Engineering, both of which are in demand here in this state. I currently work in IT but could easily work at Millstone or Pratt or EB etc. and any of the numerous Insurance firms for IT. I do pretty well here, I personally wouldn't want to move. But for people with no money and little job prospects it's a bit tougher. CT might have sucked for you if you lacked any real skills.

[PainREIGN]

Employers don't have to pay well cause the market is now flooded with more than qualified workers. People very willing to take your low paying job cause they don't want to die. Yet 50% of Americans make less than $16,000 a year as a result of this.

The problem is that the market is not flooded with qualified workers. It is flooded with kids who have degrees in underwater basket weaving and cooperative womens studies or the coveted liberal arts degree. How does that teach you how to build something or fix anything? We as a country need to push kids to learn how to work. Not trying to say that everyone needs to become a blue collar worker, but that we need to let people know that skilled trades are out there and we have an aging workforce. Not everyone needs to go to college to be successful like all of our guidance councilors tried to tell us in high school. If you learn a trade and excel at it you will always be able to find work and be able to support yourself and a family. People are always going to need things built and repaired. Working in the construction industry for almost 20 years I have seen lots of young people come and go and the ones that apply themselves and work hard go on to succeed and the ones that don't well you can figure it out.