wealth inequality

[Bollocks]

Because they can and it is affordable. Australia has $15.5 and is doing just fine; the US wouldn't crumble either.

There are certain problems that would arise, probably, such as small businesses struggling due to having to pay much more, prices going up a bit, businesses hiring less employees and hence lowering quality of services, unemployment rise, lack of motivation for some people to work on their career (if even the lowest possible salary guarantees them a decent quality of life)... However, high minimum wages or developed welfare system to compensate for lower ones seem to work fine for other countries, so I don't see why it would be an issue in the US.

You cannot just have a minimum wage that is so damn close to the median wage income. I don't know the median wage income of Australia. But if they have a 15.5 $ minimum wage their median wage income must be higher than the us as well.

[Tijuana]

Except that your historical references didn't have anything at all to do with the point being made. You're basically just shitposting, and I'm not going to entertain it any longer.



In terms of average income, when you control for inflation, no, they are not.



The bottom 60% of income-earners haven't seen any appreciable income growth in the last 50 years, despite the economy growing; that growth has been absorbed entirely by the top two quintiles.



If we're talking about social inequalities, sure, but we were talking about average economic inequalities. Which haven't significantly improved over the last 50 years.

If you are doing the same job in the economy, why should your income increase more than inflation? The growth of the economy is a measure of the whole, it has little to do with inflation adjusted wages for individuals. Our population has increased greatly in that interim also.

[Sorrior]

You cannot just have a minimum wage that is so damn close to the median wage income. I don't know the median wage income of Australia. But if they have a 15.5 $ minimum wage their median wage income must be higher than the us as well.

Our median wage as you put it is FAR too low

[Tijuana]

No. I'm saying that the wealth is created by a company, fueled by the labor of those workers, who deserve a share of that profit as much as the executives who run it do.

The executives and shareholders don't "create the wealth", all by themselves.



Those things have value. So does labor. Ignoring your staff's contributions to your company's success is not equitable.



If you really think that, then I'm sure you support the concept of a Basic Income, where everyone's basic needs are covered by the government.

Since unless you have the option to refuse to work, without suffering hardship, then that hardship forces you to participate in the labor market against your will, which means it's not a free market.

Why do the workers deserve the same share of the profit as the innovators and investors? Labor is a commodity, not part of the partnership.

Sure, labor has a value, but it doesn't have EQUAL value to the other more important factors. If it did, then all companies would be successful.

Also, I very much support Basic Income, or at least, the Milton Friedman model of Negative Income Tax. It's the kind of thing Republicans would be talking about were it not for Reagan figuring out a conservative could only win if he brought along all the evangelicals.

Where we stand apart, is the notion that being wealthy is a crime, and that they are terrible people who only got where they got because they made others suffer.

[Endus]

If you are doing the same job in the economy, why should your income increase more than inflation? The growth of the economy is a measure of the whole, it has little to do with inflation adjusted wages for individuals. Our population has increased greatly in that interim also.

Why should the CEOs and shareholders see increased income? Same argument applies both ways.

[May90]

You cannot just have a minimum wage that is so damn close to the median wage income. I don't know the median wage income of Australia. But if they have a 15.5 $ minimum wage their median wage income must be higher than the us as well.

But why not? Median wage is way below average wage, so there is a good chance that making minimum wage very close to the current median wage both will move median wage higher, and not touch average wage at all. The poor become richer, the rich become poorer, but still stay rich - sounds quite good.

What you can't, really can't do, is move minimum wage close to or above the average wage. Then the system will crumble.

[Endus]

Why do the workers deserve the same share of the profit as the innovators and investors? Labor is a commodity, not part of the partnership.

I never said "same share". I said "a share". Make it reasonably proportional.

And the last sentence? That's the root of the entire issue. It's how employers get away justifying this, by stating that their employees aren't partners assisting their company, but just a commodity for their company to consume and discard.

If that's how you want to treat them, then you can't expect them to have any loyalty or sense of belonging. If they can sue the ass out of your company for millions and drive it into bankruptcy, they should, by your argument. Because they're not part of that company, and the only relationship they have is how much money they can get out of it.

[Machismo]

That last phrase I put in bold is complete bullhockey.

It is "the government's money", when they spend it (not "give it away"). And the entire point is that it never should have been those wealthy taxpayer's money in the first place.



Apply the same standards to policing; why do you expect the government to protect you from criminals and enact justice on your behalf?
Apply them to emergency services; why aren't you paying for private fire protection and such?

Your entire argument here is patent nonsense. It's just maligning the government for daring to exist, and to have interests in protecting its citizens. No, government serving its purpose is not somehow "wrong".

In a representative democracy, when the government does something, it's because it's the collective will of the population. It IS them "doing something", by voting in those representatives who supported those kinds of ideals. The government is us, not some foreign entity.

It IS their money. The money belongs to the company, plain and simple. You want to use the government to take it from them, and give it to others. That is fucking selfish.

The second issue you bring up actual harm. I only support government intervention if actual harm is being caused. Since no harm arises in a volntnary transaction between a person and their employer, then it's none of the government's business. You want your government to do everything you want, and force your will upon others. I want the government to get the hell out of people's way.

- - - Updated - - -

Eh, as noble as that sounds, the government DOES have some stated goals. It can't be totally "out of" everything.

The question is, as it has ever been, how much should they be involved, and where?



Well, I mean...that's kinda what a society IS.

This is yet another weird idea that I've seen propaganda pushing in recent decades. This idea that the elements of a "society" are necessarily "communist" in some way. That if we take from each to benefit the whole, that somehow this is a concept that isn't acceptable.

That's the kind of thinking that wealthy people absolutely love, of course. No taxes, no social responsibility.

The government should only involve itself when actual harm is being caused. It shouldn't be used as a form of leverage in negotiations, and definitely shouldn't be used as a means to punish those with whom we simply disagree.

- - - Updated - - -

Thats call a basic tax bracket system and a non slave wage system, A LOT of countries has it and the reason the US does not is for pure indoctrinated belief that those who are rich should not pay more, most of the people telling you this are the fucking rich. Not one politician is struggling to meet ends meet. The rich will stay rich, be it with a 50% tax or a 90% tax. You've had it in the past and it worked fine. You are just a horrible human being, Plain and simple. You're the greedy one, you're the selfish one.

The United States has a tax bracket system.

[Endus]

It IS their money. The money belongs to the company, plain and simple. You want to use the government to take it from them, and give it to others. That is fucking selfish.

Once it's taxed, it's not the company's money. That's where you start lying. This isn't an ideological difference; what you are stating is blatantly and egregiously false.

[Machismo]

Indeed, this too.

But again, somehow propaganda has convinced the American citizen to simply forsake their power and put it all in the hands of the wealthy. Convinced them that the government is some kind of external force that is acting on an otherwise perfect equilibrium.

The steps backwards in terms of thinking over the last few decades are really astonishing.

People gave up their power, when they decided to have the government do things for them. The consumer still holds the power over corporations, they are simply too ignorant or lazy to use that power. Instead, they use the government.

- - - Updated - - -

Why should the CEOs and shareholders see increased income? Same argument applies both ways.

They own the company.

- - - Updated - - -

Once it's taxed, it's not the company's money. That's where you start lying. This isn't an ideological difference; what you are stating is blatantly and egregiously false.

We're discussing wages, which belongs entirely to the company. You want to take that money from them against their will. You wish to insert yourself into a voluntary agreement between the employer and employee.

[Endus]

They own the company.

I was waiting for you to provide an argument.

This isn't an argument. This doesn't remotely justify anything.

- - - Updated - - -

We're discussing wages, which belongs entirely too the company. You want to take that money from them against their will.

No, wages belong to the employee, and again, tax revenue belongs to the government.

The government is never spending someone else's money. They're spending the government's money.

[Tijuana]

I never said "same share". I said "a share". Make it reasonably proportional.

And the last sentence? That's the root of the entire issue. It's how employers get away justifying this, by stating that their employees aren't partners assisting their company, but just a commodity for their company to consume and discard.

If that's how you want to treat them, then you can't expect them to have any loyalty or sense of belonging. If they can sue the ass out of your company for millions and drive it into bankruptcy, they should, by your argument. Because they're not part of that company, and the only relationship they have is how much money they can get out of it.

You act as if it doesn't work both ways. Look, if an employer wants to purchase my time, he is going to have to compete for it. This should be true of every worker out there. The worker is functioning in a labor market. The business is functioning in a business market. The needs of both need to align before collaboration can occur.

The problem with wages is not the employers. They have always wanted to pay the least, since the beginning of time. That is a natural economic force that is constant. The problem is, the economy as a whole, has put the workers in a bad bargaining position. This is worsened by the fact their savings are not what they used to be. Many are accepting jobs they would not have, if they had more reserves to keep looking.

But, I see no reason for a modern day plumber to be more well off than his 1950s counterpart. The job holds the same value now as it did then, and that is completely normal.

[Dezerte]

According to this, the US has #14 highest minimum hourly wage in the world. If it is 3rd world based on your definition, then, I guess, Japan, South Korea and Israel are also 3rd world.

Worth noting that some of those countries don't have actual minimum wage laws, but have much higher minimum wages anyway through strong unionization (Scandinavia definitely, don't know about the others).

[Machismo]

I was waiting for you to provide an argument.

This isn't an argument. This doesn't remotely justify anything.

- - - Updated - - -



No, wages belong to the employee, and again, tax revenue belongs to the government.

The government is never spending someone else's money. They're spending the government's money.

The argument is that the owners own the company, it's their fucking money. If an employee does not feel he's being compensated properly, then he is free to leave. If a consumer does not feel the company is compensating its employees properly, they are free to shop elsewhere. I find it ridiculous to think that employees have a rightful claim over profits, when it's not their money.

Wages belong to an employer, and they pay the employee. You seem to think the government should be involved, and you want the government to force them to spend more against their will. That is the government spending someone else's money for them.

- - - Updated - - -

There's so much twisted in this statement that it's hard to know where to start.

For one, the government IS the people. Or at least that's the ideal. If a demographic wants a law changed to benefit them, they go through the government to do so. So yes, of course you "use the government".

Then you just justified slavery, segregation, and the banning of gay marriage. After all, the demographic wanted it, so it must be fine... right? Fuck that. A representative democracy does not mean that oppression will not occur, it only meeans that there is an inherent desire to control that democracy, so that you get to control who gets oppressed. How is that any different than when the corporatists do it?

[Machismo]

Actually, no, because protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority is also a job of the government.

If we as a people have participated in the systematic oppression of other portions of the population, that's an example of the system failing all of us.



I didn't ask for anyone to be oppressed. But your statement suggested that it was somehow wrong to "use the government" to enact change, which is utterly nonsensical.

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

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

[Tijuana]

Actually, no, because protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority is also a job of the government.

If we as a people have participated in the systematic oppression of other portions of the population, that's an example of the system failing all of us.



I didn't ask for anyone to be oppressed. But your statement suggested that it was somehow wrong to "use the government" to enact change, which is utterly nonsensical.

Please explain the systems in place to cause this oppression. Or does systematic oppression just have a nice ring to it?

[Bollocks]

But why not? Median wage is way below average wage, so there is a good chance that making minimum wage very close to the current median wage both will move median wage higher, and not touch average wage at all. The poor become richer, the rich become poorer, but still stay rich - sounds quite good.

What you can't, really can't do, is move minimum wage close to or above the average wage. Then the system will crumble.

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

[Endus]

You act as if it doesn't work both ways. Look, if an employer wants to purchase my time, he is going to have to compete for it. This should be true of every worker out there. The worker is functioning in a labor market. The business is functioning in a business market. The needs of both need to align before collaboration can occur.

And as long as workers can't choose not to participate in that market, what you're talking about is fantasy, not reality. This is why we have minimum wages; because otherwise, employers would pay so little that working 16 hours a day, 7 days a week would barely cover your own survival, requiring your children to work themselves if they want to eat. We know this, because that's what actually happened.

The argument is that the owners own the company, it's their fucking money.

That's not an argument. That's a lie. Money you owe in taxes is not "your money". That belongs to and was earned by the government.

Then you just justified slavery, segregation, and the banning of gay marriage. After all, the demographic wanted it, so it must be fine... right? Fuck that. A representative democracy does not mean that oppression will not occur, it only meeans that there is an inherent desire to control that democracy, so that you get to control who gets oppressed. How is that any different than when the corporatists do it?

Yes, slaveholding was the collective will of what, at the time, were legally defined as "people" (specifically, white dudes). No, that doesn't justify it, but what you're talking about is instituting exactly that kind of inequitable oligarchy, again.

Rich people aren't "oppressed". They're the most advantaged group in society. And letting that minority set the rules is just an attempt to create a new aristocracy, and move back to that kind of oligarchy, away from democracy.

[Tijuana]

Why should the CEOs and shareholders see increased income? Same argument applies both ways.

The CEOs are employees also. Let that sink in. The CEOs are employees also. The CEO has played the labor market perfectly, getting offered the highest paying job.

But, do you really need it explained why the shareholders should see increased income? Because their investment is going well. They took a risk, and the reward is profit. They are under no obligation, nor should they be, to share their profit. If the employee wants more money, then he needs to convince either his boss, or someone else's boss that he is worth more. This is no different than how the shareholders compete via the business in the overall market. If they want to make more profit, they need to either sell more, charge more, or spend less. Nobody in this equation is getting a free ride. All must work hard, manage their value well, and be willing to take an occasional risk.

[Endus]

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

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

You may as well be trying to argue that it was the plantation owners in the slaveowning South who were the REAL oppressed class, because they had to pay taxes and their slaves didn't.

It's an argument so ridiculous it practically satirizes itself.