Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[Bombur]

People do make more for their labor. The bottom 5% are the people that are happy to be in the bottom 5%. Working 20hrs or less a week at a minimum wage job is what it takes to be in the bottom 5%. If you can't work more than 20hrs a week at minimum wage... give me a break.

I agree with most of that but wages are down for many people. If you lost a job and are lucky enough to find work, they pay crap wages unless it's a higher end job. And people aren't leaving those. If you work for government you get paid much better than the private sector, bottom end flunky work here starts at $17hr.

One thing we don't hear much about is that the rich don't have the market sown up on greed. I find the cheapest people out there are liberals, and as a contractor in a heavily liberal area it sucks. They don't want you to make any money and many are living in very nice homes bought with very generous public sector salaries.

Sure wages are down. We live in a world economy where people from china are willing to do our jobs for us at 1/10th the pay. Sure it sucks.. Raising our minimum wage won't help that at all. Raising minimum wage eliminates entry level minimum wage jobs.

You want higher wages without having to work for it? Then, you better be prepared for inflationary price increases.

For example, we could place an excise tax on Asian goods made with low labor rates, that would raise prices on said goods. With the prices raised it would make financial sense to make them here and avoid the excise tax.

Pro: higher paying labor jobs than just minimum wage
Neg: higher prices for products at the store, additionally other countries would follow suit with similar import taxes on our products (some already do) which would limit our exports even further.

I am not sure min wage jobs are in competition with China. Aren't they mostly local jobs like working at a grocery store or something like that?

 

[RKMBrown]

I agree with most of that but wages are down for many people. If you lost a job and are lucky enough to find work, they pay crap wages unless it's a higher end job. And people aren't leaving those. If you work for government you get paid much better than the private sector, bottom end flunky work here starts at $17hr.

One thing we don't hear much about is that the rich don't have the market sown up on greed. I find the cheapest people out there are liberals, and as a contractor in a heavily liberal area it sucks. They don't want you to make any money and many are living in very nice homes bought with very generous public sector salaries.

Sure wages are down. We live in a world economy where people from china are willing to do our jobs for us at 1/10th the pay. Sure it sucks.. Raising our minimum wage won't help that at all. Raising minimum wage eliminates entry level minimum wage jobs.

You want higher wages without having to work for it? Then, you better be prepared for inflationary price increases.

For example, we could place an excise tax on Asian goods made with low labor rates, that would raise prices on said goods. With the prices raised it would make financial sense to make them here and avoid the excise tax.

Pro: higher paying labor jobs than just minimum wage
Neg: higher prices for products at the store, additionally other countries would follow suit with similar import taxes on our products (some already do) which would limit our exports even further.

I am not sure min wage jobs are in competition with China. Aren't they mostly local jobs like working at a grocery store or something like that?

By "Pro: higher paying labor job than just minimum wage", I meant we'd likely have more labor jobs here, which would mean people who are currently working minimum wage jobs like bagging groceries would be able to find labor jobs that pay more. Production Labor and Engineering jobs are in intense competition with Asian labor markets. Which is why the pay rates in these jobs have been lagging. Our government allowed the jobs to move, even encouraged it through tax incentives & work visa programs.

 

[Iceweasel]

Sure wages are down. We live in a world economy where people from china are willing to do our jobs for us at 1/10th the pay. Sure it sucks.. Raising our minimum wage won't help that at all. Raising minimum wage eliminates entry level minimum wage jobs.

You want higher wages without having to work for it? Then, you better be prepared for inflationary price increases.

For example, we could place an excise tax on Asian goods made with low labor rates, that would raise prices on said goods. With the prices raised it would make financial sense to make them here and avoid the excise tax.

Pro: higher paying labor jobs than just minimum wage
Neg: higher prices for products at the store, additionally other countries would follow suit with similar import taxes on our products (some already do) which would limit our exports even further.

As for the rich getting richer... I'm only upset about a few issues there and they all originate from government allowed and / or provided Oligopolies and Monopolies.

I'm for shrinking the size and scope of government, federal, state and local. Many of those jobs should be private sector jobs and let competition set wage and efficiency standards.

I don't blame outsourced jobs soley on unions and government though, US citizens voted with their dollars. I prefer quality and typically bought the American made version. But now there often is no choice.

I'm against any minimum wage, I don't want it lowered, I want it eliminated. I don't want my earnings artificially raised, I want the economy to pick up so I can charge more.

 

[Bombur]

Sure wages are down. We live in a world economy where people from china are willing to do our jobs for us at 1/10th the pay. Sure it sucks.. Raising our minimum wage won't help that at all. Raising minimum wage eliminates entry level minimum wage jobs.

You want higher wages without having to work for it? Then, you better be prepared for inflationary price increases.

For example, we could place an excise tax on Asian goods made with low labor rates, that would raise prices on said goods. With the prices raised it would make financial sense to make them here and avoid the excise tax.

Pro: higher paying labor jobs than just minimum wage
Neg: higher prices for products at the store, additionally other countries would follow suit with similar import taxes on our products (some already do) which would limit our exports even further.

I am not sure min wage jobs are in competition with China. Aren't they mostly local jobs like working at a grocery store or something like that?

By "Pro: higher paying labor job than just minimum wage", I meant we'd likely have more labor jobs here, which would mean people who are currently working minimum wage jobs like bagging groceries would be able to find labor jobs that pay more. Production Labor and Engineering jobs are in intense competition with Asian labor markets. Which is why the pay rates in these jobs have been lagging. Our government allowed the jobs to move, even encouraged it through tax incentives & work visa programs.

I have no problem with this post. I think there are a lot of things our government does and doesn't do that leads to the changing trends besides what you mentioned.

I am not really sure what we should do about the min wage though. It is a part of the labor market where the laborer really has no leverage when asking for a wage but I think most of the exposure these jobs have is to shifts in demand more so than competition from foreign nations.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The government gets money that no refunds will be requested for, from people who will never ask for government services.

Wrong. Illegals, and their kids, consume tens of billions of dollars in government services, ranging from free medical care, free education and the costs of their crimes and incarcerations.

The figure you quote is grossly exaggerated. The figure deemed most reliable is published in a federal report at $10B and even this figure is considered far too high by some. It includes an estimated cost for small business loans given to illegal immigrants, and is said to over-estimate the cost of welfare, crimes and incarceration because these numbers include all immigrants, legal or otherwise.

Ten billion, actually qualifies as tens of billions. Sure, it implies more than one set of 10 billion, but that the government reports it at one 10 billion block, reason requires it to be vastly more, given that a state by state assessment, wherein the respective totals are in the billions, we can readily deduce that the cost of subsidizing illegals is well north of 10 billion.

But the problem with illegals, along with the dead wood within the ranks of the US Citizenry would be solved overnight, where subsidies of every stripe were stripped from the culture.

The axiomatic question there inevitably comes: "What are you going to do, let them STARVE?". The answer to which is a decided YES. As hunger is nature's great motivator. And it works like a charm EVERY single time it is applied.

Naturally, there are those who cannot provide for themselves. It is those people who would be subsidized by individuals of substantial means, through what is known as CHARITY.

Will a small percentage turn to crime? Sure. But that percentage is identical to the percentage of people who are presently pursuing criminal ends.

The vast majority will get up and go find a means to produce in some exchange wherein the skills they possess and apply, will realize a profitable return, providing them the means to improve their lot.

This is how nature designed the species and that is a fact without regard to those who disagree, even where they STRONGLY disagree.

In effect, those who contest the point are stating that it isn't fair that people should have to work for less than they deserve. When in truth, people earn precisely what they deserve.

And this is true, with every single instance, in every single exchange, where both parties come to the table as honest brokers.

Now, the point will come that 'everyone isn't honest' and it usually comes from those who advocate against religion, which is the advocacy wherein honesty is promoted, accountability is applied and where the individual is encouraged to discipline their weaker traits and to promote within themselves the force of character, wherein sound individuals and, quite by default, sound cultures are, therefore, sustained.

And that's really all there is to it. Nothing complicated about any of it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I am not sure min wage jobs are in competition with China. Aren't they mostly local jobs like working at a grocery store or something like that?

By "Pro: higher paying labor job than just minimum wage", I meant we'd likely have more labor jobs here, which would mean people who are currently working minimum wage jobs like bagging groceries would be able to find labor jobs that pay more. Production Labor and Engineering jobs are in intense competition with Asian labor markets. Which is why the pay rates in these jobs have been lagging. Our government allowed the jobs to move, even encouraged it through tax incentives & work visa programs.

I have no problem with this post. I think there are a lot of things our government does and doesn't do that leads to the changing trends besides what you mentioned.

I am not really sure what we should do about the min wage though. It is a part of the labor market where the laborer really has no leverage when asking for a wage but I think most of the exposure these jobs have is to shifts in demand more so than competition from foreign nations.

The Minimum wage is established by nature, wherein a person of minimal skills is paid, in keeping with those skills and within the individuals threshold of what they will accept, given their circumstances, within the means of the individual with whom they are bargaining.

Where the state establishes a Minimum allowable by law, the state simply sets into place a system which inflates the value of minimal skills. This axiomatically devalues the currency which is in play.

No effort, no skills=zero. Now reason dictates that the minimum that some effort and some skill would bring would begin at the first level of currency. Wherever the legal threshold sets the legal mark of valuation of that currency.

In short, one cent would provide a starting place for one hour of minimally applied, minimally skilled labor.

Where the government set $1 as the mark, you can rest assured that the government has just set the $1 value for what is reflected in one cent of value.

Break it out anyway you like, making the minimal value $1, the minimal wage $10, $10 is worth $1.

Now, for the naysayers, I would submit that Progressivism came into play in the US in the late 19th, early 20th century.

Since then, the US dollar has declined in value, roughly 95-96% depending on what report ya read. But anyone can figure it out for themselves by simply looking up what subsistence goods and services were worth in 1900 and compare that to today's values.

Again, nothing complicated about any of this crap. It only BECOME to APPEAR complicated where the equations are mucked up with species arguments which rationalize every aspect of life and those arguments are what sustains: Collectivism, which no matter hw ya cut it, always sums to: SOCIALISM.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Sure wages are down. We live in a world economy where people from china are willing to do our jobs for us at 1/10th the pay. Sure it sucks.. Raising our minimum wage won't help that at all. Raising minimum wage eliminates entry level minimum wage jobs.

You want higher wages without having to work for it? Then, you better be prepared for inflationary price increases.

For example, we could place an excise tax on Asian goods made with low labor rates, that would raise prices on said goods. With the prices raised it would make financial sense to make them here and avoid the excise tax.

Pro: higher paying labor jobs than just minimum wage
Neg: higher prices for products at the store, additionally other countries would follow suit with similar import taxes on our products (some already do) which would limit our exports even further.

I am not sure min wage jobs are in competition with China. Aren't they mostly local jobs like working at a grocery store or something like that?

By "Pro: higher paying labor job than just minimum wage", I meant we'd likely have more labor jobs here, which would mean people who are currently working minimum wage jobs like bagging groceries would be able to find labor jobs that pay more. Production Labor and Engineering jobs are in intense competition with Asian labor markets. Which is why the pay rates in these jobs have been lagging. Our government allowed the jobs to move, even encouraged it through tax incentives & work visa programs.

I am an employer of some 30+ years experience. In that time, I have NEVER HIRED ANYONE based upon the legal threshold of minimum wage. This is because I have no position which provides for someone of minimal ambition, minimal intellectual means and minimal skill sets.

The market sets our pay scale. Meaning that where the skills we seek are plentiful, the wages paid are conducive to that circumstance and vice-versa.

With the exception of the corporate drones, I know of NO ONE who operates otherwise.

 

[Bombur]

By "Pro: higher paying labor job than just minimum wage", I meant we'd likely have more labor jobs here, which would mean people who are currently working minimum wage jobs like bagging groceries would be able to find labor jobs that pay more. Production Labor and Engineering jobs are in intense competition with Asian labor markets. Which is why the pay rates in these jobs have been lagging. Our government allowed the jobs to move, even encouraged it through tax incentives & work visa programs.

I have no problem with this post. I think there are a lot of things our government does and doesn't do that leads to the changing trends besides what you mentioned.

I am not really sure what we should do about the min wage though. It is a part of the labor market where the laborer really has no leverage when asking for a wage but I think most of the exposure these jobs have is to shifts in demand more so than competition from foreign nations.

The Minimum wage is established by nature, wherein a person of minimal skills is paid, in keeping with those skills and within the individuals threshold of what they will accept, given their circumstances, within the means of the individual with whom they are bargaining.

Where the state establishes a Minimum allowable by law, the state simply sets into place a system which inflates the value of minimal skills. This axiomatically devalues the currency which is in play.

No effort, no skills=zero. Now reason dictates that the minimum that some effort and some skill would bring would begin at the first level of currency. Wherever the legal threshold sets the legal mark of valuation of that currency.

In short, one cent would provide a starting place for one hour of minimally applied, minimally skilled labor.

Where the government set $1 as the mark, you can rest assured that the government has just set the $1 value for what is reflected in one cent of value.

Break it out anyway you like, making the minimal value $1, the minimal wage $10, $10 is worth $1.

Now, for the naysayers, I would submit that Progressivism came into play in the US in the late 19th, early 20th century.

Since then, the US dollar has declined in value, roughly 95-96% depending on what report ya read. But anyone can figure it out for themselves by simply looking up what subsistence goods and services were worth in 1900 and compare that to today's values.

Again, nothing complicated about any of this crap. It only BECOME to APPEAR complicated where the equations are mucked up with species arguments which rationalize every aspect of life and those arguments are what sustains: Collectivism, which no matter hw ya cut it, always sums to: SOCIALISM.

The low end of the wage/labor spectrum is not generally thought of as a good example of a market because people at that spectrum have little to no leverage. The end result is that the market is inelastic with regards to wages and working conditions.

Your argument concerning currency has multiple logical fallacies. First off it is a red herring. Second the correlation you built is weak and the causation is non-existent. You are also making some rather lame appeals to emotion.

I don't think you know what socialism is. I also think you don't really understand that we have always had to be united as a nation and rely on one another. The well being of one has always had an impact on others. That doesn't make us socialists, it makes us a nation.

 

[Iceweasel]

Your argument concerning currency has multiple logical fallacies. First off it is a red herring. Second the correlation you built is weak and the causation is non-existent. You are also making some rather lame appeals to emotion.

Wow. You trotted out almost every argumentitive terminology in a few brief sentences.

I don't think you know what socialism is. I also think you don't really understand that we have always had to be united as a nation and rely on one another. The well being of one has always had an impact on others. That doesn't make us socialists, it makes us a nation.

But we are moving in the socialist direction with increasing government control. We want to turn the boat around before it's too late or we'll be a socialist nation.

 

[Bombur]

Your argument concerning currency has multiple logical fallacies. First off it is a red herring. Second the correlation you built is weak and the causation is non-existent. You are also making some rather lame appeals to emotion.

Wow. You trotted out almost every argumentitive terminology in a few brief sentences.

I don't think you know what socialism is. I also think you don't really understand that we have always had to be united as a nation and rely on one another. The well being of one has always had an impact on others. That doesn't make us socialists, it makes us a nation.

But we are moving in the socialist direction with increasing government control. We want to turn the boat around before it's too late or we'll be a socialist nation.

Even when Marx was writing there were a lot of different ways people were defining Socialism but generally speaking it was the work of Marx that caught on the most. Socialism as a political theory is based on the fear that Democracy is threatened by power shifting towards those who own the means of production (in other words the rich and wealthy). It is based on the economic reality that those who own the means of production own the product of other people’s labor. That this would eventually lead to unsustainable economic inequality where those who owned the means of production would rule over others.

Both of these ideas presented a problem that needed a solution and it is this solution that is often called socialism. Socialism is based on the state being the owner of the means of production.

What we are seeing in the US is a nation that is becoming what the socialists of the past feared. What most people these days call socialism, like UHC, are attempts to stop that reality feared by socialists from happening.

We live in an age where Marx’s fears are being proven to be true. No matter what you think of his solution.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I heard the other day that income inequality has worsened over the past five Obumbler years in office.

 

[Bombur]

I heard the other day that income inequality has worsened over the past five Obumbler years in office.

Obama hasn't done anything to correct the trend.

That said it takes a long time to even know what the underlying trend is because income of the top can be so volatile in the short term (5 years is the short term in this instance).

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I heard the other day that income inequality has worsened over the past five Obumbler years in office.

Obama hasn't done anything to correct the trend.

That said it takes a long time to even know what the underlying trend is because income of the top can be so volatile in the short term (5 years is the short term in this instance).

OR, the OTHER lesson one might reasonably derive from the historical oddity is that

Obumbler is a flop and socialism actually makes things worse.

 

[Bombur]

I heard the other day that income inequality has worsened over the past five Obumbler years in office.

Obama hasn't done anything to correct the trend.

That said it takes a long time to even know what the underlying trend is because income of the top can be so volatile in the short term (5 years is the short term in this instance).

OR, the OTHER lesson one might reasonably derive from the historical oddity is that

Obumbler is a flop and socialism actually makes things worse.

What "socialism" are you even talking about?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Obama hasn't done anything to correct the trend.

That said it takes a long time to even know what the underlying trend is because income of the top can be so volatile in the short term (5 years is the short term in this instance).

OR, the OTHER lesson one might reasonably derive from the historical oddity is that

Obumbler is a flop and socialism actually makes things worse.

What "socialism" are you even talking about?

It's a genuine mystery to you, eh?

Let's just agree to utilize the phrase "redistribution of wealth" and leave it at that.

 

[Bombur]

OR, the OTHER lesson one might reasonably derive from the historical oddity is that

Obumbler is a flop and socialism actually makes things worse.

What "socialism" are you even talking about?

It's a genuine mystery to you, eh?

Let's just agree to utilize the phrase "redistribution of wealth" and leave it at that.

OK what redistribution of wealth are you talking about?

 

[Indeependent]

What "socialism" are you even talking about?

It's a genuine mystery to you, eh?

Let's just agree to utilize the phrase "redistribution of wealth" and leave it at that.

OK what redistribution of wealth are you talking about?

Off-shoring, business visas and the Cayman Islands.

 

[Iceweasel]

Socialism as a political theory is based on the fear that Democracy is threatened by power shifting towards those who own the means of production (in other words the rich and wealthy). It is based on the economic reality that those who own the means of production own the product of other people’s labor. That this would eventually lead to unsustainable economic inequality where those who owned the means of production would rule over others.

Both of these ideas presented a problem that needed a solution and it is this solution that is often called socialism. Socialism is based on the state being the owner of the means of production.

What we are seeing in the US is a nation that is becoming what the socialists of the past feared. What most people these days call socialism, like UHC, are attempts to stop that reality feared by socialists from happening.

We live in an age where Marx’s fears are being proven to be true. No matter what you think of his solution.

Of course power goes to the wealthy, it's always been that way. Even in communist countries but even moreso. I think socialists are happy about our direction, we sure aren't moving towards more free market capitalism. Croney capitalism is a problem but I don't see the left doing anything about it. The leaders say one thing to whip up the base for votes, then do another.

 

[Katzndogz]

Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?

A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?

Ready for the best part?

Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.

"The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.

"The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."

"Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world’s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.

"In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown, increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent less than half a percentage point."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."

you obviously have no fuckin' idea 'bout the way economics works...

rich folks having huge piles of dough doesn't automatically translate to poor folks having nothing...

the economic pie doesn't just sit there stagnant and staying at the same size...

it grows according to the effort put into it by all parties, large and small...

In a capitalistic culture the poor have quite a bit. The poor in America are wildly wealthy compared to the poor of socialistic countries and comfortably wealthy compared to the poor in America of 50 years ago.

Even in the most stringent practicing communistic countries those who refuse to work have nothing.

 

[Bombur]

Socialism as a political theory is based on the fear that Democracy is threatened by power shifting towards those who own the means of production (in other words the rich and wealthy). It is based on the economic reality that those who own the means of production own the product of other people’s labor. That this would eventually lead to unsustainable economic inequality where those who owned the means of production would rule over others.

Both of these ideas presented a problem that needed a solution and it is this solution that is often called socialism. Socialism is based on the state being the owner of the means of production.

What we are seeing in the US is a nation that is becoming what the socialists of the past feared. What most people these days call socialism, like UHC, are attempts to stop that reality feared by socialists from happening.

We live in an age where Marx’s fears are being proven to be true. No matter what you think of his solution.

Of course power goes to the wealthy, it's always been that way. Even in communist countries but even moreso. I think socialists are happy about our direction, we sure aren't moving towards more free market capitalism. Croney capitalism is a problem but I don't see the left doing anything about it. The leaders say one thing to whip up the base for votes, then do another.

Rising income inequality and growing importance of money in politics are what traditional socialists feared. I don't know any modern day socialists that are not crazy so I don't think it really matters what they think.

What does matter is that Marx is being proven right with regards to his fears. I don't see anyone doing anything about the problems either so it is very hard for me to agree with you that socialism is growing.

Also crony capitalism isn't the only threat to labor. Given certain economic conditions a push for laissez faire economics can also be a threat to the power of people to the benefit of the capital owners. I think many capital owners would simply prefer the government get out of the way so that their rise to power can continue.