Fixing Inequality

[Defiant1]

Ah yes the lovely technology of phone systems, such a joy. And then you lucky you get someone who speaks English. Maybe you haven't noticed but a lot of call centers are overseas.

Should there be a law that the phone centers have to be here?

Tax incentives to have your call center here would be nice.

Isn't that considered to be corporate welfare?

 

[Jarhead]

It is a fact that income inequality has an impact on all the things I previously listed.

Sorry.

No, it's not a fact. It is your opinion and you have yet to back up your opinion with any facts.

Growing income inequality is really a symptom of the problem more so than the direct cause but it can also be a cause for some of the problems. The more direct cause is a weak labor market combined with some other factors.

At this point I am not sure what facts you have a problem with.

You are not stating facts.

You are stating theory.

You seem to know economics...you are well aware that economics is theory...and there are two very different theories...both with valid hypotheses but neither proven as fact.

 

[The Rabbi]

Is the irony intentional?

There was no irony.
You planning on explaining why you think income inequality is a problem that demands a gov't solution or should we just take your word?

It is inefficient and left unchecked it will undermine our Democracy. Possibly to the point of revolution.

Is that enough of a reason?

There is nothing inefficient about it. On the contrary, it is very efficient: the people who make the most of resources get the most of them.
The only thing that will undermine the democracy (and we have a republic) is people forcing solutions to cure imagined problems.

 

[Bombur]

Better....lets see what happens when I do what you claim the rich do.....

Follow closely...

I make cogs.
I sell 200K cogs a year.
My profit on a cog is 1 dollar so I make 200K a year.
I want to make 300K a year.
So I increase the price accordingly and the demand drops due to the higher price so now I am making only 175K a year.
SO I price it back to where it was and lay off some people decreasing my operating costs BUT also decreasing my productivity...
So now I can only sell 175K cogs due to less people making them for me.
So I increase the price of the cog again and now demand is even lower because not only are they too expensive, but thanks to me and my rich friends laying off people, we now have less people able to buy cogs.
SO now I am only making 150K

Sorry son.....you may be book smart....but not practical smart.....

Actually one of the hardest things about economics is understanding the difference between decisions like the one you describe and systems that rely on all sides of the equation that act more like a cycle than a simple micro economic decision.

Productivity is increasing all the time but production is not just limited by capacity but demand. Demand must grow.

No.
Demand must not decrease....but not necessarily grow.

How can the rich get richer if demand for their goods and services decreases?

If demand for my product decreases due to me and my friends laying off employees...OR....if productivity decreases, because my greed had me make the knee jerk decision to lay people off so I can take more home...

What happens?

I make less money.

So why would I do it?

You see....what you claim is the problem has a contradiction.

My greed is not the problem for my greed will result in me making less money.

No demand has to grow. In an economy with full employment there will be an increase in demand.

From micro economic perspective the employer will make decisions based on the demand for production. They will not assume demand for their product will decrease because they fired someone. They will make more money.

 

[The Rabbi]

It is inefficient and left unchecked it will undermine our Democracy. Possibly to the point of revolution.

Is that enough of a reason?

you gave a reason but did not explain how that reason is applicable.

Please explain how it is inefficient and how it will undermine our democracy.

It is inefficient because it leads to unemployment, underemployment, people in jail, slower growth in demand and therefore supply, more volatility which slows growth long term, increases likelihood and dependence on government aid, destroys communities and harms children(future producers), and more.

As for Democracy being undermined, just look at how important money is now in our democratic process and how people are becoming frustrated. Now imagine how many more years of growing income inequality it will take to break the US. 5 decades? 10 decades?

Growing income inequality is simply unsustainable.

It does not lead to unemployment, or underemployment or people in jail. That is simply made up. If I am making $50k/year and someone else is making $5M/year how am I unemployed, underemployed or in jail?

 

[The Rabbi]

It is inefficient because it leads to unemployment, underemployment, people in jail, slower growth in demand and therefore supply, more volatility which slows growth long term, increases likelihood and dependence on government aid, destroys communities and harms children(future producers), and more.

As for Democracy being undermined, just look at how important money is now in our democratic process and how people are becoming frustrated. Now imagine how many more years of growing income inequality it will take to break the US. 5 decades? 10 decades?

Growing income inequality is simply unsustainable.

How does it lead to unemployment?

Slower growth in demand?

Huh?

DO you think the manufacturers and retailers expect to stay in business catering to just the 1%?

Or do you think they adjust prices to allow for a greater demand for their goods?

Come on son.....do some thinking.

Don't regurgitate left wing talking points.

Technically it is a weak labor market that leads to both income inequality and unemployment but they both feed back into themselves unless rectified.

Slower growth in production because there is slower growth in demand because there is slower growth in compensation.

No I don't think production expects to stay in business catering to just the 1%.

I would love to hear your price theory argument in more detail.

The labor market under Bush for the most part was very robust and there was rising inequality. The poor were making more money but the rich were making even more. You think inequality means some people make more at the expense of others and it is a zero sum game. That is also incorrect.

 

[Bombur]

No, it's not a fact. It is your opinion and you have yet to back up your opinion with any facts.

Growing income inequality is really a symptom of the problem more so than the direct cause but it can also be a cause for some of the problems. The more direct cause is a weak labor market combined with some other factors.

At this point I am not sure what facts you have a problem with.

You are not stating facts.

You are stating theory.

You seem to know economics...you are well aware that economics is theory...and there are two very different theories...both with valid hypotheses but neither proven as fact.

In economics there are a lot of theories, not just two. I am not talking about theories about what we should or should not do. I am talking about things that relate to each other by definition. Income inequality relates to the labor market by definition. We know for a fact that certain things impact the labor market. We know for a fact that certain impacts to the labor market lead to increased unemployment and underemployment. I could go on but like I said before I am not even sure what facts are being questioned.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Liberals need to figure out how to fix the unfairness in the world...

Short people have a hard time making the NBA.
Ugly people have a hard time becoming models.
Lazy people have a hard time keeping a job.
Dumb people have a hard time getting into MIT.

Come on liberals.....it is all just sooooooo unfair.

The very rich are doing everything they can to take all the money and leave the rest poor. Look at all the jobs shipped overseas, hiding money in foreign countries, fighting the unions... Meanwhile they get all kinds of corporate welfare. Your comparison isn't the same as nobody is going around making people ugly, but the rich are doing all they can to make more poor.

"The very rich are doing everything they can to take all the money and leave the rest poor."
A couple questions....
Please define "The money"?
Which "jobs" are being shipped overseas?
PLease provide examples of "corporate welfare"..
Where is the incentive to "make people poor"..
BTW, the Obama admin's goal is to create dependency upon government. And it's happening. There twice as many people on food stamps now as there were in 2009.

 

[The Rabbi]

Technically it is a weak labor market that leads to both income inequality and unemployment but they both feed back into themselves unless rectified.

Slower growth in production because there is slower growth in demand because there is slower growth in compensation.

No I don't think production expects to stay in business catering to just the 1%.

I would love to hear your price theory argument in more detail.

Better....lets see what happens when I do what you claim the rich do.....

Follow closely...

I make cogs.
I sell 200K cogs a year.
My profit on a cog is 1 dollar so I make 200K a year.
I want to make 300K a year.
So I increase the price accordingly and the demand drops due to the higher price so now I am making only 175K a year.
SO I price it back to where it was and lay off some people decreasing my operating costs BUT also decreasing my productivity...
So now I can only sell 175K cogs due to less people making them for me.
So I increase the price of the cog again and now demand is even lower because not only are they too expensive, but thanks to me and my rich friends laying off people, we now have less people able to buy cogs.
SO now I am only making 150K

Sorry son.....you may be book smart....but not practical smart.....

Actually one of the hardest things about economics is understanding the difference between decisions like the one you describe and systems that rely on all sides of the equation that act more like a cycle than a simple micro economic decision.

Productivity is increasing all the time but production is not just limited by capacity but demand. Demand must grow.

What is the difference between a decision and a system?
I swear you're making this up as you go along.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The only ones responsible for 'fixing inequality' are those who feel that they are not getting what they want or deserve...

The government is not there to take more from one to either give to you or have you pay a reduced rate for the same services, every time you have a tear in your eye because it makes you feel bad that you are not getting as much as the next guy

well that too, but the article is talking about Governments involvement in our economy

Actually, exportation of jobs is a direct result of capitalism==> labor is treated as a mere commodity, and is priced accordingly. The cheapest stock is purchased when no regulation exists that prevents it. This isn't rocket science.

The best thing the government can do is abandon it's pro-corporate "low inflation" philosophy and adopt a pro-worker "full employment" philosophy. That should be apparent to everyone, but for some reason it isn't.

Labor IS a commodity. However, exportation of jobs is a direct result of government interference in the economy, making the capitalism that is human nature - fucking deal with it, whiner - go find their commodities at a lower price somewhere else. Insisting on making the world better by demanding that human beings as an entire group act entirely contrary to their own self-interest qualifies under the definition of "insanity".

That being said, your idea of "Let's stop letting taxes on corporations be so low and REALLY stick it to those bastards financially" is truly put into its proper perspective in the picture of "exporting jobs overseas" - a fucking insane idea by a fucking insane idiot.

Congratulations for having the most ignorant post I've seen this week. Bravo!

 

[The Rabbi]

Now...if you want to bring up an honest discussion for debate.....then why not go this way....

The issue is technology. Nothing more.

I used to need 4 receptionists to answer 100 lines.

Each was paid 30K.

Now we have voicemail and direct lines......so I only need one receptionist to handle the overflow....

It cost me 100K for the system, but I save 90K a year in salary.

Argument...

Should I get to keep that savings.....or pay all of my remaining employees more?

And THAT is a valid argument.

Not this crap about the rich firing people to make more money.

Its about business owners growing with technology.

What really matters in this scenario is demand. If you are a producer in say China and you can tap US demand you could potentially keep all of your employees, increase wages, and lower prices all while increasing profits.

If you are in a situation where demand for your product is stagnant an increase in production can actually work against itself in the short term because of the downward pressure on labor inherent in increases in productivity.

On the flip side if you didn't have access to that 100K you couldn't afford the system and productivity wouldn't increase as fast.

So you are theorizing that if you can sell more product you can make more money? Wow, alert the media!
Productivity does not necessarily mean producing more. If you produce the same amount but use 70%of the resources you used to then you still increase profit. This btw is what has driven the growth in corporate profit over the last 5 years.

 

[Bombur]

The labor market under Bush for the most part was very robust

The labor market under Bush was not robust but I don't blame him for that. In fact when the labor market took a hit under Sr it was a result of him making good long term decisions.

 

[bendog]

Growing income inequality is really a symptom of the problem more so than the direct cause but it can also be a cause for some of the problems. The more direct cause is a weak labor market combined with some other factors.

At this point I am not sure what facts you have a problem with.

You are not stating facts.

You are stating theory.

You seem to know economics...you are well aware that economics is theory...and there are two very different theories...both with valid hypotheses but neither proven as fact.

In economics there are a lot of theories, not just two. I am not talking about theories about what we should or should not do. I am talking about things that relate to each other by definition. Income inequality relates to the labor market by definition. We know for a fact that certain things impact the labor market. We know for a fact that certain impacts to the labor market lead to increased unemployment and underemployment. I could go on but like I said before I am not even sure what facts are being questioned.

Doesn't it basically come down to the gop of today simply finds anything other than tax cuts to be heresey in addressing income inequality, and the dems encompasing more of a big tent that has some groups favoring "re-unionizing", and public health groups, and protectionist (although Obama and Hill are free traders) , more progressive taxer, more public educ funding ....?

 

[Bombur]

So you are theorizing that if you can sell more product you can make more money? Wow, alert the media!
Productivity does not necessarily mean producing more. If you produce the same amount but use 70%of the resources you used to then you still increase profit. This btw is what has driven the growth in corporate profit over the last 5 years.

It is always strange when someone accidently argues my point for me then claims victory.

 

[Contumacious]

Should there be a law that the phone centers have to be here?

Tax incentives to have your call center here would be nice.

Isn't that considered to be corporate welfare?

Bailouts, YES.

Reduction in taxes, NO.

.

 

[The Rabbi]

Growing income inequality is really a symptom of the problem more so than the direct cause but it can also be a cause for some of the problems. The more direct cause is a weak labor market combined with some other factors.

At this point I am not sure what facts you have a problem with.

You are not stating facts.

You are stating theory.

You seem to know economics...you are well aware that economics is theory...and there are two very different theories...both with valid hypotheses but neither proven as fact.

In economics there are a lot of theories, not just two. I am not talking about theories about what we should or should not do. I am talking about things that relate to each other by definition. Income inequality relates to the labor market by definition. We know for a fact that certain things impact the labor market. We know for a fact that certain impacts to the labor market lead to increased unemployment and underemployment. I could go on but like I said before I am not even sure what facts are being questioned.

That is so vague as to be meaningless. Yes lots of thing affect the labor market. So what? Income inequality is not one of them though.

 

[The Rabbi]

So you are theorizing that if you can sell more product you can make more money? Wow, alert the media!
Productivity does not necessarily mean producing more. If you produce the same amount but use 70%of the resources you used to then you still increase profit. This btw is what has driven the growth in corporate profit over the last 5 years.

It is always strange when someone accidently argues my point for me then claims victory.

Im not sure you understand your own point, much less mine.
For most of Bush's tenure undemployment was in the 5% range, which is generally considered full employment. I dont know what you would term a robust labor market if not that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The govt has no biz in helping people get healthcare; rather, it's properly allocated to private markets.

No, that's wrong--and I have no idea why you choose to believe and promote that.

Well, that really says it all, doesn't it? For all that I think your outlook on the world is the view of a moderately-retarded mental case, I DO actually understand what it is you think and why. I can't imagine how you could truly believe you've come to some insightful, well-thought-out position on the subject when you have no fucking idea what the opposition believes or why.

 

[Bombur]

You are not stating facts.

You are stating theory.

You seem to know economics...you are well aware that economics is theory...and there are two very different theories...both with valid hypotheses but neither proven as fact.

In economics there are a lot of theories, not just two. I am not talking about theories about what we should or should not do. I am talking about things that relate to each other by definition. Income inequality relates to the labor market by definition. We know for a fact that certain things impact the labor market. We know for a fact that certain impacts to the labor market lead to increased unemployment and underemployment. I could go on but like I said before I am not even sure what facts are being questioned.

Doesn't it basically come down to the gop of today simply finds anything other than tax cuts to be heresey in addressing income inequality, and the dems encompasing more of a big tent that has some groups favoring "re-unionizing", and public health groups, and protectionist (although Obama and Hill are free traders) , more progressive taxer, more public educ funding ....?

Free trade is a fine idea but it is a two way street. Imbalanced capital flows don't result in free trade.

Increases in productivity are great but as I have talked about in other posts they can be problematic in the short term. A period where demand contracts while productivity increases can be a big problem. Historically speaking the US has used debt to help prop up demand in the short term. Eventually demand has to grow on its own.

The tax code isn't great for US production or US labor and needs to be fixed. Politicians play politics.

 

[francoHFW]

Free trade is great if you follow up training and education for the work force, which is the part Pubs refuse...

The bottom fifth pays 16 per cent in all taxes and fees, everyone else 21 per cent...When the richest's wealth at LEAST triples under a tax system, and the rest stay the same for 30 years, and the country goes to hell, the richest aren't paying enough DUH. Also seems to be the way to prevent obscenities like CEOs now making on average over 300x what the average employee does, when it was 40 in 1970. Pub dupes...change the channel...