Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[Iceweasel]

I think many capital owners would simply prefer the government get out of the way so that their rise to power can continue.

Yep. Everybody's rise.

 

[Bombur]

I think many capital owners would simply prefer the government get out of the way so that their rise to power can continue.

Yep. Everybody's rise.

I was specifically talking about their power relative to others so no.

Growing income inequality is no joke. I am not sure how many more decades our economy can last on our current trend.

 

[Iceweasel]

I was specifically talking about their power relative to others so no.

Growing income inequality is no joke. I am not sure how many more decades our economy can last on our current trend.

I don't know how many more years we can last at this pace. The democrats are scewing up the economy and jobs so that inequality will continue.

 

[Bombur]

I was specifically talking about their power relative to others so no.

Growing income inequality is no joke. I am not sure how many more decades our economy can last on our current trend.

I don't know how many more years we can last at this pace. The democrats are scewing up the economy and jobs so that inequality will continue.

Oh both parties have done plenty but I doubt you could tell me what either of them have done to impact it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I was specifically talking about their power relative to others so no.

Growing income inequality is no joke. I am not sure how many more decades our economy can last on our current trend.

I don't know how many more years we can last at this pace. The democrats are scewing up the economy and jobs so that inequality will continue.

Oh both parties have done plenty but I doubt you could tell me what either of them have done to impact it.

I doubt you will like the answer.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/337411-which-president-did-the-most-to-equalize-income.html

 

[Avatar4321]

Why should our incomes be equal?

We don't do the same amount of work. We don't do the same type of work. We don't serve the same amount of people with our work. We don't have the same needs. We don't have the same desires.

Why on earth should our income be equal? it doesn't make sense.

 

[Iceweasel]

Oh both parties have done plenty but I doubt you could tell me what either of them have done to impact it.

I've done it repeatedly so I doubt that you can understand.

 

[Bombur]

I don't know how many more years we can last at this pace. The democrats are scewing up the economy and jobs so that inequality will continue.

Oh both parties have done plenty but I doubt you could tell me what either of them have done to impact it.

I doubt you will like the answer.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/337411-which-president-did-the-most-to-equalize-income.html

Do you really think that is how economics works?

Good grief.

 

[Bombur]

Oh both parties have done plenty but I doubt you could tell me what either of them have done to impact it.

I've done it repeatedly so I doubt that you can understand.

By repeating political talking points that have no basis in reality? By arguing against the very economic theories that establish the justification for your own economic beliefs? By arguing for supply side economics?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh both parties have done plenty but I doubt you could tell me what either of them have done to impact it.

I doubt you will like the answer.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/337411-which-president-did-the-most-to-equalize-income.html

Do you really think that is how economics works?

Good grief.

There are times that I hate being right.

 

[Bombur]

I doubt you will like the answer.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/337411-which-president-did-the-most-to-equalize-income.html

Do you really think that is how economics works?

Good grief.

There are times that I hate being right.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Right. However, the liberals don't want to just raise minimum wage a small amount. Their goal is to set minimum wage to a living wage standard above or at least equal to the poverty line. This means setting minimum wage above what is paid some labor rate jobs.

They really don't care if that means jobs that are not worth paying said imaginary living wage amount are eliminated. They don't care because those people will just sign up for welfare and probably vote democrat to keep the welfare checks coming.

If they don't get the minimum wage increase they insist on more and more welfare.

I believe the strategy is to burn the country to the ground until everyone who is not a rich democrat is living at the poverty line. They'll just keep pushing and pushing welfare handouts, till there are so many people on welfare outs, that the welfare party is firmly and irrevocably in power. Stage I complete. Stage II... re-education camps.

 

[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.

Right. However, the liberals don't want to just raise minimum wage a small amount. Their goal is to set minimum wage to a living wage standard above or at least equal to the poverty line. This means setting minimum wage above what is paid some labor rate jobs.

They really don't care if that means jobs that are not worth paying said imaginary living wage amount are eliminated. They don't care because those people will just sign up for welfare and probably vote democrat to keep the welfare checks coming.

If they don't get the minimum wage increase they insist on more and more welfare.

I believe the strategy is to burn the country to the ground until everyone who is not a rich democrat is living at the poverty line. They'll just keep pushing and pushing welfare handouts, till there are so many people on welfare outs, that the welfare party is firmly and irrevocably in power. Stage I complete. Stage II... re-education camps.

I don't think asking for a minimum wage hike has anything to do with re-education camps.

 

[Dragonlady]

Why should our incomes be equal?

We don't do the same amount of work. We don't do the same type of work. We don't serve the same amount of people with our work. We don't have the same needs. We don't have the same desires.

Why on earth should our income be equal? it doesn't make sense.

Income equality doesn't mean everyone makes the same amount of money. It means that base rates rise equally. If incomes for the top 1% have risen by 60% across the board, then middle incomes should be rising by 60% as well, as should the minimum wages. In this way, everyone's buying power remains the same.

The idea that conservatives keep clinging to that is demonstratively false is that the top 1% are creating jobs. The top 1% are sitting on billions in capital at the moment and not using it to create jobs. They're not spending it or investing it.

If the bottom 40% had more income, they'd be spending it. And that would create demand for products. And, assuming the products are manufactured in the US, that will create jobs.

But as long as Americans buy cheap goods from China, the only jobs they'll be creating are minimum wage retail jobs, while the manufacturing sector in China and other third world countries continues to expand.

 

[Kosh]

Income inequality is a far left catch phrase, how much money does one need in order to provide shelter, clothing and food.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Right. However, the liberals don't want to just raise minimum wage a small amount. Their goal is to set minimum wage to a living wage standard above or at least equal to the poverty line. This means setting minimum wage above what is paid some labor rate jobs.

They really don't care if that means jobs that are not worth paying said imaginary living wage amount are eliminated. They don't care because those people will just sign up for welfare and probably vote democrat to keep the welfare checks coming.

If they don't get the minimum wage increase they insist on more and more welfare.

I believe the strategy is to burn the country to the ground until everyone who is not a rich democrat is living at the poverty line. They'll just keep pushing and pushing welfare handouts, till there are so many people on welfare outs, that the welfare party is firmly and irrevocably in power. Stage I complete. Stage II... re-education camps.

I don't think asking for a minimum wage hike has anything to do with re-education camps.

Is that because you've already been to the camps and they taught you to say that, or because you honestly don't see the 1-1 relationship between Marx/Communism and government organization of labor via minimum wage hikes?

Communism (n) 1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
2.a. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
b. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat. <reeducation camps>

 

[RKMBrown]

Income inequality is a far left catch phrase, how much money does one need in order to provide shelter, clothing and food.

I figured it out to be about 4k a year here in Texas.

 

[Bombur]

Right. However, the liberals don't want to just raise minimum wage a small amount. Their goal is to set minimum wage to a living wage standard above or at least equal to the poverty line. This means setting minimum wage above what is paid some labor rate jobs.

They really don't care if that means jobs that are not worth paying said imaginary living wage amount are eliminated. They don't care because those people will just sign up for welfare and probably vote democrat to keep the welfare checks coming.

If they don't get the minimum wage increase they insist on more and more welfare.

I believe the strategy is to burn the country to the ground until everyone who is not a rich democrat is living at the poverty line. They'll just keep pushing and pushing welfare handouts, till there are so many people on welfare outs, that the welfare party is firmly and irrevocably in power. Stage I complete. Stage II... re-education camps.

I don't think asking for a minimum wage hike has anything to do with re-education camps.

Is that because you've already been to the camps and they taught you to say that, or because you honestly don't see the 1-1 relationship between Marx/Communism and government organization of labor via minimum wage hikes?

Communism (n) 1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
2.a. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
b. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat. <reeducation camps>

A min wage hike is not the same as the state taking ownership over the means of production.

HTH

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

Oh now THAT IS FASCINATING!

Let's take your position as it unfolded.

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.

They have no leverage because they have no skills, no experience and no record on which the employer can look upon to predict what he should invest in them OR their skills, experience and record provides that they're no worthy of anything except the lowest possible wage. The low end of the wage spectrum realized by the EMPLOYEE, represents the low end of the need spectrum by the EMPLOYER. Meaning that the employer needs little from the low wage earner, expects little from them and he usually gets less than he expects, deserves and FOR WHICH HE PAYS.

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.

Red Herring ya say?

Do tell.

Well let's do this, let's look at the argument I presented, wherein I stated the absolutely incontrovertible fact, that by raising the minimum value for which one can pay for labor, which is the rate upon which ALL OTHER LABOR ARE BASED, you devalue the currency to which the mandate is tethered.

Now you claim that in so stating that I violated the principle defining Ignoratio Elenchi or the 'irrelevant thesis', AKA: the "Red Herring", which holds that the such distracts the argument to a point of irrelevancy.

Now in this case, I'm sure that the objective reader will agree that the issue is: "The Minimum Wage".

Further, we can rest assured that the same reader would agree that the discussion specific to my argument is: "The Minimum Wage". Therefore, the discussion of "The Wage artificially decreed which representing the Minimum WAGE for which one can work and which one can PAY, along with the predictable effects OF SUCH", is precisely ... (wait for it ... (Wait) ... (it's COMING) ... (HOOOooooold!):

.

.

.

R E L E V A N T​

.

.

.


Huh...

Oh my. Now that's not good. Why, it appears that you're full of crap.

But hey! I like to give the benefit of the doubt to the intellectually less fortunate. The 'minimal intellect', I like to say.

So let's try to remain objective here and go a bit further, because that would be FAIR and I'm all about the fairness.

Maybe "Relevant" is a subjective term that can mean different things to different people.

Well, this happens from time to time and, when presented with such a conflict in 'opinion', I like to go to an objective, authoritative resource and check. So let's go the "The Big Book O'WORDS and see what IT says about that.

Relevant: closely connected or appropriate to the matter at hand
​

OOPS!

Now, here's the cool part:

By erroneously posing that the contested point is fallacious, distracting from the argument, the contributor DISTRACTED FROM THE ARGUMENT, deflecting such to a POINT OF IRRELEVANCE!~ as the above clarification establishes in irrepressible terms, having moved FROM the ISSUE OF: THE MINIMUM WAGE, to the lesson on why geek collectivists should NEVER POKE THE BEAR!

If you'd like to try again, I will be happy to consider whatever you'd like to bring. But I would encourage your comments to remain focused on the issue at hand and that is the specious notion that the Government should devalue the currency by establishing an artificially high rate being tethered to LABOR, which is the fundamentally highest cost of production with production bing essential to economic gains.

But at the end of the day, it's your choice, so don't let me influence you, go with your gut. And do that which will provide the least pain.

 

[RKMBrown]

I don't think asking for a minimum wage hike has anything to do with re-education camps.

Is that because you've already been to the camps and they taught you to say that, or because you honestly don't see the 1-1 relationship between Marx/Communism and government organization of labor via minimum wage hikes?

Communism (n) 1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
2.a. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
b. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat. <reeducation camps>

A min wage hike is not the same as the state taking ownership over the means of production.

HTH

BS. It's the same damn thing. How is government mandating pay rates, and benefits for employees not taking ownership of the owner's property? How is the owner supposed to keep his property when the government is mandating he divide it among his employees in the form of higher salaries?

Oh.. you must be one of those folks that think taxes on Income isn't slavery too.