Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[thereisnospoon]

More than 75% of those working mw jobs are adults. You have to recognize that there were always be mw workers. If we pay them more, they can take college classes and work their way up. Keep them at starvation wages, as you want and they will never be able to climb the ladder, plus, we tax payers end up subsidizing their employers with earned income and foodstamps.

Do you really think these employers are going to pay for trade school when they won't even pay a living wage? How exactly are you going to get them to do that?

Thanks to "Thereisnospoon" for pointing out the actual demographics of the minimum wage worker. AgainSheila, where is your compassion? These are mind-numbing jobs with (for the most part) no future. What a living wage does is to make folks comfortable in really crappy employment. It actually promotes the JOB, not the person. The goal should NOT be overpricing labor at the butt-pickerupper level (and therefore overpricing ALL labor), but to set a path for these folks to continue education and training WHILE they work. A large percentage of these folks ARE students (or semi-retired) and they ALL should training for a career. You get employers to DO THIS because if they don't subsidize the UNTRAINED entry level worker -- they've got nobody to hire except OVER-Qualified applicants that they can attract at HIGHER wages. And the PR benefits of a clever training program can pay for themselves.. Makes them look like angels..

Your other prescription was to return taxes to 1970 levels. Shouldn't be neccessary to do that. If you look at Fed tax revenue as a percent of GDP, it's been surprisingly flat since the 60's or so at around 18%. Linking revenues to GDP is the same rationale as COLA. The govt SHOULD be able consume less than 20% of EVERYTHING that gets produced in this country. I'd be glad to give the left the Bush Tax Cuts back. Largely because that would be the equivalent right now of really bad chemotherapy for the economic system. And THEN -- Pelosi-Reid, et al would have nothing left to suggest. They'd become irrelevent once their one solution is fielded and tested.

My friend has an associate's degree. She's been working as a maid most of her life. Why? She has tourette's syndrome and no one wants to hire her to work around people. Many people working mw jobs will never be able to find better jobs, education or not. Where is YOUR compassion? Do you really believe my friends who's worked hard all her life, doesn't deserve a living wage? I suppose you'd be happier if she went on disability and lived off our taxes?

Yeah fed taxes have been level because the middle class are paying MORE taxes while the wealthy are paying much much less in taxes, as are corporations.

What would you like us to do?
Her employer is responsible for her wage. He or she can only charge so much for his/her services. The employer has two options. He/she can raise rates so that the employee can e paid more. The downfall of which is the customer can determine the rates to be more than they wish to pay and then go to a other service, in which case your friend would make ZERO.
Or the employer gives the worker more money and hence the business does not turn a profit and goes out of business....In that case both the worker AND the business owner have ZERO income....
Contrary to liberal popular belief, business owners do not possess some kind of magic pot of money from which they can freely withdraw money at will.
Now, what say you?

 

[Polk]

Quite a bit more than the 177,000 you are claiming, isn't it? FYI? "median" is not "average".

{Mean, median, and mode are three kinds of "averages". There are many "averages" in statistics, but these are, I think, the three most common, and are certainly the three you are most likely to encounter in your pre-statistics courses, if the topic comes up at all.

The "mean" is the "average" you're used to, where you add up all the numbers and then divide by the number of numbers. The "median" is the "middle" value in the list of numbers. To find the median, your numbers have to be listed in numerical order, so you may have to rewrite your list first. The "mode" is the value that occurs most often. If no number is repeated, then there is no mode for the list.}

Mean, Median, Mode, and Range

Try again, sparky...

To call the median of a set the average is really faulty understanding of statistics, but it is the more relevant data point in this case.

 

[Foxfyre]

More than 75% of those working mw jobs are adults. You have to recognize that there were always be mw workers. If we pay them more, they can take college classes and work their way up. Keep them at starvation wages, as you want and they will never be able to climb the ladder, plus, we tax payers end up subsidizing their employers with earned income and foodstamps.

Do you really think these employers are going to pay for trade school when they won't even pay a living wage? How exactly are you going to get them to do that?

Thanks to "Thereisnospoon" for pointing out the actual demographics of the minimum wage worker. AgainSheila, where is your compassion? These are mind-numbing jobs with (for the most part) no future. What a living wage does is to make folks comfortable in really crappy employment. It actually promotes the JOB, not the person. The goal should NOT be overpricing labor at the butt-pickerupper level (and therefore overpricing ALL labor), but to set a path for these folks to continue education and training WHILE they work. A large percentage of these folks ARE students (or semi-retired) and they ALL should training for a career. You get employers to DO THIS because if they don't subsidize the UNTRAINED entry level worker -- they've got nobody to hire except OVER-Qualified applicants that they can attract at HIGHER wages. And the PR benefits of a clever training program can pay for themselves.. Makes them look like angels..

Your other prescription was to return taxes to 1970 levels. Shouldn't be neccessary to do that. If you look at Fed tax revenue as a percent of GDP, it's been surprisingly flat since the 60's or so at around 18%. Linking revenues to GDP is the same rationale as COLA. The govt SHOULD be able consume less than 20% of EVERYTHING that gets produced in this country. I'd be glad to give the left the Bush Tax Cuts back. Largely because that would be the equivalent right now of really bad chemotherapy for the economic system. And THEN -- Pelosi-Reid, et al would have nothing left to suggest. They'd become irrelevent once their one solution is fielded and tested.

My friend has an associate's degree. She's been working as a maid most of her life. Why? She has tourette's syndrome and no one wants to hire her to work around people. Many people working mw jobs will never be able to find better jobs, education or not. Where is YOUR compassion? Do you really believe my friends who's worked hard all her life, doesn't deserve a living wage? I suppose you'd be happier if she went on disability and lived off our taxes?

Yeah fed taxes have been level because the middle class are paying MORE taxes while the wealthy are paying much much less in taxes, as are corporations.

There are many forms of compassion and one form of compassion is to let the free market work and trust that most people will spend their own money more efficiently and effectively than the government will spend it on their behalf. And the more prosperous the free market is, the more prosperous the people will be.

It is not compassion to pay people who are not worth more than minimum wage a higher wage. It is compassion to help people qualify for and be competent in jobs that are worth more than minimum wage.

Because Hombre was transferred so much the first years of our marriage, he was moving up the corporate ladder with each move. As he was the primary bread winner of the family that was okay with me, but I had to pretty much start over with each move. And as often or not, I started out at minimum wage or very low wages with each new entry level position. But because I am good at what I do, I never stayed at the entry level wage for long. And I got a lot of raises because my employer knew that if he didn't pay me adequately, somebody else would. But I never had an employer pay me more than I was worth.

I think that is the story with the huge lion's share of all those who have a work ethic and marketable skills. Most people earning minimum wage year in and year out are not capable of making themselves worth more than minimum wage. Or are unwilling.

As for those who can't qualify for more than minimum wage jobs through no fault of their own, such as your friend, it is not compassion to hurt the larger economy to accommodate a very few and perhaps destroy jobs for many. But there is nothing stopping those who have compassion for them to contribute from their own pockets to help out.

 

[flacaltenn]

AgainSheila:

My friend has an associate's degree. She's been working as a maid most of her life. Why? She has tourette's syndrome and no one wants to hire her to work around people. Many people working mw jobs will never be able to find better jobs, education or not. Where is YOUR compassion? Do you really believe my friends who's worked hard all her life, doesn't deserve a living wage? I suppose you'd be happier if she went on disability and lived off our taxes?

Yeah fed taxes have been level because the middle class are paying MORE taxes while the wealthy are paying much much less in taxes, as are corporations.

I'm not a counselor, but you're friend is covered by the ADA. Any employer who can't accomodate her disability may be risking Fed charges. Bigger question is -- what is the AA degree in? Was there ever a plan to have a different career? I don't believe your statement that MANY people working at mw will never find better jobs. Technically, no one actually stays at min wage for long, but it DOES determine the trajectory of their compensation for a long time. It's a small fraction of people who start at mw that have disabilities that prevent their advancement. Because MOST handicaps are demonstratably surmountable. And we SHOULD be talking about welfare in those cases. That's no reason to propose a living wage bump to the BOTTOM of the wage scale that would start an undeniable spiral of wages for EVERY SINGLE WORKER in this country.. Absurd.. If the country is gonna have a MINIMUM wage (never mind an ambitious LIVING wage), at least Congress should do it's duty and NOT make it a perennial political prank and MANAGE it correctly. Indexed to COLA and region.
I cannot expect that they can manage a bake sale..

Corporations eh? Like G.E.? Did you know that G.E. gets up to $100 per dishwasher in tax CREDITS solely because the eco-left wanted Energy efficiency? THAT's largely how G.E. (and their jolly dancing greenish pachyderm) dances happily thru the tax jungle. IT LOVES being green. I want those ridiculous credits for eco-left wet dreams to end. Today. Their getting paid for products they would have made anyway because of the eco-left..

 

[Againsheila]

Thanks to "Thereisnospoon" for pointing out the actual demographics of the minimum wage worker. AgainSheila, where is your compassion? These are mind-numbing jobs with (for the most part) no future. What a living wage does is to make folks comfortable in really crappy employment. It actually promotes the JOB, not the person. The goal should NOT be overpricing labor at the butt-pickerupper level (and therefore overpricing ALL labor), but to set a path for these folks to continue education and training WHILE they work. A large percentage of these folks ARE students (or semi-retired) and they ALL should training for a career. You get employers to DO THIS because if they don't subsidize the UNTRAINED entry level worker -- they've got nobody to hire except OVER-Qualified applicants that they can attract at HIGHER wages. And the PR benefits of a clever training program can pay for themselves.. Makes them look like angels..

Your other prescription was to return taxes to 1970 levels. Shouldn't be neccessary to do that. If you look at Fed tax revenue as a percent of GDP, it's been surprisingly flat since the 60's or so at around 18%. Linking revenues to GDP is the same rationale as COLA. The govt SHOULD be able consume less than 20% of EVERYTHING that gets produced in this country. I'd be glad to give the left the Bush Tax Cuts back. Largely because that would be the equivalent right now of really bad chemotherapy for the economic system. And THEN -- Pelosi-Reid, et al would have nothing left to suggest. They'd become irrelevent once their one solution is fielded and tested.

My friend has an associate's degree. She's been working as a maid most of her life. Why? She has tourette's syndrome and no one wants to hire her to work around people. Many people working mw jobs will never be able to find better jobs, education or not. Where is YOUR compassion? Do you really believe my friends who's worked hard all her life, doesn't deserve a living wage? I suppose you'd be happier if she went on disability and lived off our taxes?

Yeah fed taxes have been level because the middle class are paying MORE taxes while the wealthy are paying much much less in taxes, as are corporations.

What would you like us to do?
Her employer is responsible for her wage. He or she can only charge so much for his/her services. The employer has two options. He/she can raise rates so that the employee can e paid more. The downfall of which is the customer can determine the rates to be more than they wish to pay and then go to a other service, in which case your friend would make ZERO.
Or the employer gives the worker more money and hence the business does not turn a profit and goes out of business....In that case both the worker AND the business owner have ZERO income....
Contrary to liberal popular belief, business owners do not possess some kind of magic pot of money from which they can freely withdraw money at will.
Now, what say you?

Yeah, it's just a coincidence that the percentage of the budget that goes to pay employees is much smaller than it was in the 70's. Look at Boeing, they went from paying their employees 13% of the budget to 6% of the budget.

 

[Againsheila]

Thanks to "Thereisnospoon" for pointing out the actual demographics of the minimum wage worker. AgainSheila, where is your compassion? These are mind-numbing jobs with (for the most part) no future. What a living wage does is to make folks comfortable in really crappy employment. It actually promotes the JOB, not the person. The goal should NOT be overpricing labor at the butt-pickerupper level (and therefore overpricing ALL labor), but to set a path for these folks to continue education and training WHILE they work. A large percentage of these folks ARE students (or semi-retired) and they ALL should training for a career. You get employers to DO THIS because if they don't subsidize the UNTRAINED entry level worker -- they've got nobody to hire except OVER-Qualified applicants that they can attract at HIGHER wages. And the PR benefits of a clever training program can pay for themselves.. Makes them look like angels..

Your other prescription was to return taxes to 1970 levels. Shouldn't be neccessary to do that. If you look at Fed tax revenue as a percent of GDP, it's been surprisingly flat since the 60's or so at around 18%. Linking revenues to GDP is the same rationale as COLA. The govt SHOULD be able consume less than 20% of EVERYTHING that gets produced in this country. I'd be glad to give the left the Bush Tax Cuts back. Largely because that would be the equivalent right now of really bad chemotherapy for the economic system. And THEN -- Pelosi-Reid, et al would have nothing left to suggest. They'd become irrelevent once their one solution is fielded and tested.

My friend has an associate's degree. She's been working as a maid most of her life. Why? She has tourette's syndrome and no one wants to hire her to work around people. Many people working mw jobs will never be able to find better jobs, education or not. Where is YOUR compassion? Do you really believe my friends who's worked hard all her life, doesn't deserve a living wage? I suppose you'd be happier if she went on disability and lived off our taxes?

Yeah fed taxes have been level because the middle class are paying MORE taxes while the wealthy are paying much much less in taxes, as are corporations.

There are many forms of compassion and one form of compassion is to let the free market work and trust that most people will spend their own money more efficiently and effectively than the government will spend it on their behalf. And the more prosperous the free market is, the more prosperous the people will be.

It is not compassion to pay people who are not worth more than minimum wage a higher wage. It is compassion to help people qualify for and be competent in jobs that are worth more than minimum wage.

Because Hombre was transferred so much the first years of our marriage, he was moving up the corporate ladder with each move. As he was the primary bread winner of the family that was okay with me, but I had to pretty much start over with each move. And as often or not, I started out at minimum wage or very low wages with each new entry level position. But because I am good at what I do, I never stayed at the entry level wage for long. And I got a lot of raises because my employer knew that if he didn't pay me adequately, somebody else would. But I never had an employer pay me more than I was worth.

I think that is the story with the huge lion's share of all those who have a work ethic and marketable skills. Most people earning minimum wage year in and year out are not capable of making themselves worth more than minimum wage. Or are unwilling.

As for those who can't qualify for more than minimum wage jobs through no fault of their own, such as your friend, it is not compassion to hurt the larger economy to accommodate a very few and perhaps destroy jobs for many. But there is nothing stopping those who have compassion for them to contribute from their own pockets to help out.

Free market? Is that like our mythical "capitalism" where we bail out financial institutions with $billions while letting the middle class pay more in taxes to cover those companies idiot decisions? We don't have a "free market" or "capitalism" we never did. What we have today is much closer to fascism and welfare for the rich. Think about it, if all those $billions went to the people losing their homes, they could have paid their mortgages and the banks still would have gotten their money. Instead, thanks to our government, the money has been stolen from the middle class and poor to pay the wealthy. Yeah, great "free market" we have, isn't it?

 

[flacaltenn]

The govt is incapable of mounting a "homeowner rescue" such as you propose AgainSheila. And the note holders got the money because the loans were fundamentally bad. Made to folks who didn't really qualify. So why would you pay their mortgages? For how long? Now that's not really a solution is it?

Maybe reduce their negative equity? For Free? Maybe that would be better, but identifying the "needy" from all those who are simply underwater is beyond the capabilities of the FEDs.

 

[Againsheila]

The govt is incapable of mounting a "homeowner rescue" such as you propose AgainSheila. And the note holders got the money because the loans were fundamentally bad. Made to folks who didn't really qualify. So why would you pay their mortgages? For how long? Now that's not really a solution is it?

Maybe reduce their negative equity? For Free? Maybe that would be better, but identifying the "needy" from all those who are simply underwater is beyond the capabilities of the FEDs.

In a "free market" the banks wouldn't have been bailed out at taxpayer expense.

 

[thereisnospoon]

My friend has an associate's degree. She's been working as a maid most of her life. Why? She has tourette's syndrome and no one wants to hire her to work around people. Many people working mw jobs will never be able to find better jobs, education or not. Where is YOUR compassion? Do you really believe my friends who's worked hard all her life, doesn't deserve a living wage? I suppose you'd be happier if she went on disability and lived off our taxes?

Yeah fed taxes have been level because the middle class are paying MORE taxes while the wealthy are paying much much less in taxes, as are corporations.

What would you like us to do?
Her employer is responsible for her wage. He or she can only charge so much for his/her services. The employer has two options. He/she can raise rates so that the employee can e paid more. The downfall of which is the customer can determine the rates to be more than they wish to pay and then go to a other service, in which case your friend would make ZERO.
Or the employer gives the worker more money and hence the business does not turn a profit and goes out of business....In that case both the worker AND the business owner have ZERO income....
Contrary to liberal popular belief, business owners do not possess some kind of magic pot of money from which they can freely withdraw money at will.
Now, what say you?

Yeah, it's just a coincidence that the percentage of the budget that goes to pay employees is much smaller than it was in the 70's. Look at Boeing, they went from paying their employees 13% of the budget to 6% of the budget.

Are you going to respond to the subject matter?
What you posted is nonsense.
Oh, since you opened the door.....It is incumbent upon the operators of a business to control costs. If Boeing has lowered it's labor costs while operating at peak efficiency, the management should be congratulated. The business of business is to turn a profit for the investors.
before your knee jerks upward and cracks you squarely in the chin....Boeing's new Charleston facility will pay near or at union scale wages. The cost of labor is lower because there's no union to slow productivity and increase expenses.
The company saves money, the workers are well compensated. Everybody is happy.
Where's the problem?

 

[Againsheila]

What would you like us to do?
Her employer is responsible for her wage. He or she can only charge so much for his/her services. The employer has two options. He/she can raise rates so that the employee can e paid more. The downfall of which is the customer can determine the rates to be more than they wish to pay and then go to a other service, in which case your friend would make ZERO.
Or the employer gives the worker more money and hence the business does not turn a profit and goes out of business....In that case both the worker AND the business owner have ZERO income....
Contrary to liberal popular belief, business owners do not possess some kind of magic pot of money from which they can freely withdraw money at will.
Now, what say you?

Yeah, it's just a coincidence that the percentage of the budget that goes to pay employees is much smaller than it was in the 70's. Look at Boeing, they went from paying their employees 13% of the budget to 6% of the budget.

Are you going to respond to the subject matter?
What you posted is nonsense.
Oh, since you opened the door.....It is incumbent upon the operators of a business to control costs. If Boeing has lowered it's labor costs while operating at peak efficiency, the management should be congratulated. The business of business is to turn a profit for the investors.
before your knee jerks upward and cracks you squarely in the chin....Boeing's new Charleston facility will pay near or at union scale wages. The cost of labor is lower because there's no union to slow productivity and increase expenses.
The company saves money, the workers are well compensated. Everybody is happy.
Where's the problem?

1% of our nation owns more wealth than 90% of our nation, I would think that you could see the problem, but apparently, I'm wrong.

If things went according to history, we'd have already had Bastille day.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Yeah, it's just a coincidence that the percentage of the budget that goes to pay employees is much smaller than it was in the 70's. Look at Boeing, they went from paying their employees 13% of the budget to 6% of the budget.

Are you going to respond to the subject matter?
What you posted is nonsense.
Oh, since you opened the door.....It is incumbent upon the operators of a business to control costs. If Boeing has lowered it's labor costs while operating at peak efficiency, the management should be congratulated. The business of business is to turn a profit for the investors.
before your knee jerks upward and cracks you squarely in the chin....Boeing's new Charleston facility will pay near or at union scale wages. The cost of labor is lower because there's no union to slow productivity and increase expenses.
The company saves money, the workers are well compensated. Everybody is happy.
Where's the problem?

1% of our nation owns more wealth than 90% of our nation, I would think that you could see the problem, but apparently, I'm wrong.

If things went according to history, we'd have already had Bastille day.

Now that is not even close to being true and if it were, so what?
That has no bearing on anyone. There is no finite amount of wealth. Wealth is created.
There is no "share".....The zero sum game is a myth.
Now, try answering the question put to you above.

 

[Againsheila]

Are you going to respond to the subject matter?
What you posted is nonsense.
Oh, since you opened the door.....It is incumbent upon the operators of a business to control costs. If Boeing has lowered it's labor costs while operating at peak efficiency, the management should be congratulated. The business of business is to turn a profit for the investors.
before your knee jerks upward and cracks you squarely in the chin....Boeing's new Charleston facility will pay near or at union scale wages. The cost of labor is lower because there's no union to slow productivity and increase expenses.
The company saves money, the workers are well compensated. Everybody is happy.
Where's the problem?

1% of our nation owns more wealth than 90% of our nation, I would think that you could see the problem, but apparently, I'm wrong.

If things went according to history, we'd have already had Bastille day.

Now that is not even close to being true and if it were, so what?
That has no bearing on anyone. There is no finite amount of wealth. Wealth is created.
There is no "share".....The zero sum game is a myth.
Now, try answering the question put to you above.

You are right, the pie is getting bigger,unfortunately, only a small percentage of the people are getting a bigger piece. Like I said, if things went according to history we would have already had our Bastille day. No country can long survive with the vast majority of it's wealth in the hands of a few. I've come up with some ways to fix the problem, you just don't believe there is a problem. You thinks it's perfectly fine to have the vast majority of our country's wealth in the hands of very few individuals.

I feel for you when the revolution finally comes. I don't think you'll survive it, you won't even know what happened, or why.

 

[thereisnospoon]

1% of our nation owns more wealth than 90% of our nation, I would think that you could see the problem, but apparently, I'm wrong.

If things went according to history, we'd have already had Bastille day.

Now that is not even close to being true and if it were, so what?
That has no bearing on anyone. There is no finite amount of wealth. Wealth is created.
There is no "share".....The zero sum game is a myth.
Now, try answering the question put to you above.

You are right, the pie is getting bigger,unfortunately, only a small percentage of the people are getting a bigger piece. Like I said, if things went according to history we would have already had our Bastille day. No country can long survive with the vast majority of it's wealth in the hands of a few. I've come up with some ways to fix the problem, you just don't believe there is a problem. You thinks it's perfectly fine to have the vast majority of our country's wealth in the hands of very few individuals.

I feel for you when the revolution finally comes. I don't think you'll survive it, you won't even know what happened, or why.

Using the force of government sanctions to confiscate the rightful property of certain people to transfer it to those who did not earn it is not a "fix"....

 

[Foxfyre]

My friend has an associate's degree. She's been working as a maid most of her life. Why? She has tourette's syndrome and no one wants to hire her to work around people. Many people working mw jobs will never be able to find better jobs, education or not. Where is YOUR compassion? Do you really believe my friends who's worked hard all her life, doesn't deserve a living wage? I suppose you'd be happier if she went on disability and lived off our taxes?

Yeah fed taxes have been level because the middle class are paying MORE taxes while the wealthy are paying much much less in taxes, as are corporations.

There are many forms of compassion and one form of compassion is to let the free market work and trust that most people will spend their own money more efficiently and effectively than the government will spend it on their behalf. And the more prosperous the free market is, the more prosperous the people will be.

It is not compassion to pay people who are not worth more than minimum wage a higher wage. It is compassion to help people qualify for and be competent in jobs that are worth more than minimum wage.

Because Hombre was transferred so much the first years of our marriage, he was moving up the corporate ladder with each move. As he was the primary bread winner of the family that was okay with me, but I had to pretty much start over with each move. And as often or not, I started out at minimum wage or very low wages with each new entry level position. But because I am good at what I do, I never stayed at the entry level wage for long. And I got a lot of raises because my employer knew that if he didn't pay me adequately, somebody else would. But I never had an employer pay me more than I was worth.

I think that is the story with the huge lion's share of all those who have a work ethic and marketable skills. Most people earning minimum wage year in and year out are not capable of making themselves worth more than minimum wage. Or are unwilling.

As for those who can't qualify for more than minimum wage jobs through no fault of their own, such as your friend, it is not compassion to hurt the larger economy to accommodate a very few and perhaps destroy jobs for many. But there is nothing stopping those who have compassion for them to contribute from their own pockets to help out.

Free market? Is that like our mythical "capitalism" where we bail out financial institutions with $billions while letting the middle class pay more in taxes to cover those companies idiot decisions? We don't have a "free market" or "capitalism" we never did. What we have today is much closer to fascism and welfare for the rich. Think about it, if all those $billions went to the people losing their homes, they could have paid their mortgages and the banks still would have gotten their money. Instead, thanks to our government, the money has been stolen from the middle class and poor to pay the wealthy. Yeah, great "free market" we have, isn't it?

I think you're confusing free market with government misconduct or incompetence, Sheila. In a free market the government gets out of it and lets the people put together the society it needs to succeed or make things better.

I am for the government doing no more than is necessary to secure and protect our rights and then letting the people live their lives. America has good people, and given proper incentive and opportunity, makes good, prosperous communities, and those who wish to benefit generally can.

The government cannot dictate our lives better than we can choose for ourselves.
The government cannot spend our money more effectively or efficiently than we can spend it for ourselves.

 

[Againsheila]

Now that is not even close to being true and if it were, so what?
That has no bearing on anyone. There is no finite amount of wealth. Wealth is created.
There is no "share".....The zero sum game is a myth.
Now, try answering the question put to you above.

You are right, the pie is getting bigger,unfortunately, only a small percentage of the people are getting a bigger piece. Like I said, if things went according to history we would have already had our Bastille day. No country can long survive with the vast majority of it's wealth in the hands of a few. I've come up with some ways to fix the problem, you just don't believe there is a problem. You thinks it's perfectly fine to have the vast majority of our country's wealth in the hands of very few individuals.

I feel for you when the revolution finally comes. I don't think you'll survive it, you won't even know what happened, or why.

Using the force of government sanctions to confiscate the rightful property of certain people to transfer it to those who did not earn it is not a "fix"....

Making obscene amounts of money off the backs of the working people is not "rightful" in anyway shape or form.

 

[Againsheila]

There are many forms of compassion and one form of compassion is to let the free market work and trust that most people will spend their own money more efficiently and effectively than the government will spend it on their behalf. And the more prosperous the free market is, the more prosperous the people will be.

It is not compassion to pay people who are not worth more than minimum wage a higher wage. It is compassion to help people qualify for and be competent in jobs that are worth more than minimum wage.

Because Hombre was transferred so much the first years of our marriage, he was moving up the corporate ladder with each move. As he was the primary bread winner of the family that was okay with me, but I had to pretty much start over with each move. And as often or not, I started out at minimum wage or very low wages with each new entry level position. But because I am good at what I do, I never stayed at the entry level wage for long. And I got a lot of raises because my employer knew that if he didn't pay me adequately, somebody else would. But I never had an employer pay me more than I was worth.

I think that is the story with the huge lion's share of all those who have a work ethic and marketable skills. Most people earning minimum wage year in and year out are not capable of making themselves worth more than minimum wage. Or are unwilling.

As for those who can't qualify for more than minimum wage jobs through no fault of their own, such as your friend, it is not compassion to hurt the larger economy to accommodate a very few and perhaps destroy jobs for many. But there is nothing stopping those who have compassion for them to contribute from their own pockets to help out.

Free market? Is that like our mythical "capitalism" where we bail out financial institutions with $billions while letting the middle class pay more in taxes to cover those companies idiot decisions? We don't have a "free market" or "capitalism" we never did. What we have today is much closer to fascism and welfare for the rich. Think about it, if all those $billions went to the people losing their homes, they could have paid their mortgages and the banks still would have gotten their money. Instead, thanks to our government, the money has been stolen from the middle class and poor to pay the wealthy. Yeah, great "free market" we have, isn't it?

I think you're confusing free market with government misconduct or incompetence, Sheila. In a free market the government gets out of it and lets the people put together the society it needs to succeed or make things better.

I am for the government doing no more than is necessary to secure and protect our rights and then letting the people live their lives. America has good people, and given proper incentive and opportunity, makes good, prosperous communities, and those who wish to benefit generally can.

The government cannot dictate our lives better than we can choose for ourselves.
The government cannot spend our money more effectively or efficiently than we can spend it for ourselves.

No, but the government can fix a living minimum wage, thereby reducing our income gap and putting more money in the hands of the working people and less in the hands of the obscenely wealthy. As I said before, no country can long survive with the majority of it's wealth in the hands of a few.

 

[Foxfyre]

Free market? Is that like our mythical "capitalism" where we bail out financial institutions with $billions while letting the middle class pay more in taxes to cover those companies idiot decisions? We don't have a "free market" or "capitalism" we never did. What we have today is much closer to fascism and welfare for the rich. Think about it, if all those $billions went to the people losing their homes, they could have paid their mortgages and the banks still would have gotten their money. Instead, thanks to our government, the money has been stolen from the middle class and poor to pay the wealthy. Yeah, great "free market" we have, isn't it?

I think you're confusing free market with government misconduct or incompetence, Sheila. In a free market the government gets out of it and lets the people put together the society it needs to succeed or make things better.

I am for the government doing no more than is necessary to secure and protect our rights and then letting the people live their lives. America has good people, and given proper incentive and opportunity, makes good, prosperous communities, and those who wish to benefit generally can.

The government cannot dictate our lives better than we can choose for ourselves.
The government cannot spend our money more effectively or efficiently than we can spend it for ourselves.

No, but the government can fix a living minimum wage, thereby reducing our income gap and putting more money in the hands of the working people and less in the hands of the obscenely wealthy. As I said before, no country can long survive with the majority of it's wealth in the hands of a few.

They've fixed and fixed and fixed the minimum wage. And with each increase, the pool of hardcore unemployed has increased among our poorest citizens. I think it is time to rethink that philosophy.

Unemployment
Some economists suggest that the minimum wage imposes a wage floor that prices cheap labor out of the market, reducing the pool of low-wage jobs. Daniel Mitchell of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, suggests that "businesses are not charities and that they only create jobs when they think a worker will generate net revenue. Higher minimum wages ... are especially destructive for people with poor work skills and limited work experience. This is why young people and minorities tend to suffer most." Put differently: If an employer needs someone to perform odd jobs, and he values the work at $2 per hour, he will not hire a person if the minimum wage is $7 per hour, thus keeping unemployment in low-wage brackets higher than it would otherwise be.

Welfare and Work Incentive
Minimum wages affect a person's willingness to work when labor is deducted from an unemployment benefit. According to Paul Kersey, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, "the more relief [unemployment benefit] that is offered, the less incentive there is to work. In effect, one works for the difference between potential wages and relief. For example, if the relief is $106 per week, and the offered wage is $110 per week, then in real terms, the individual is being asked to work for only $4.00 per week." Because the increase in net income is so small when working full-time at a minimum wage with 40-hour-per-week stipulations limiting income, compared with working zero hours and receiving a generous unemployment check, it is rational to avoid work.

Limited Anti-Poverty Benefit
James Sherk, a senior policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, argues that "the evidence shows that (1) a higher minimum wage causes employers to cut back on the number of workers they hire and employees' working hours; (2) the beneficiaries of higher minimum wages are unlikely to be poor because most minimum-wage earners are not poor; and (3) few individuals living in poverty work at minimum-wage jobs or any job." Federal labor statistics suggest that minimum-wage earners are more often part-time youth, including college students and working parents, who may be laboring for additional money but not for their survival. There is little evidence that heads of households work at minimum-wage jobs.
Problems With Minimum Wage | Small Business - Chron.com
******************************'

The article goes on to discuss effects on minorities and reduced training opportunities. And if you move on to CATO and Heritage Foundation and others who have done extensive research, they explain the upward push on costs and prices when the wages are artificially inflated and that also hurts most the people least able to afford those increases.

 

[Againsheila]

I think you're confusing free market with government misconduct or incompetence, Sheila. In a free market the government gets out of it and lets the people put together the society it needs to succeed or make things better.

I am for the government doing no more than is necessary to secure and protect our rights and then letting the people live their lives. America has good people, and given proper incentive and opportunity, makes good, prosperous communities, and those who wish to benefit generally can.

The government cannot dictate our lives better than we can choose for ourselves.
The government cannot spend our money more effectively or efficiently than we can spend it for ourselves.

No, but the government can fix a living minimum wage, thereby reducing our income gap and putting more money in the hands of the working people and less in the hands of the obscenely wealthy. As I said before, no country can long survive with the majority of it's wealth in the hands of a few.

They've fixed and fixed and fixed the minimum wage. And with each increase, the pool of hardcore unemployed has increased among our poorest citizens. I think it is time to rethink that philosophy.

Unemployment
Some economists suggest that the minimum wage imposes a wage floor that prices cheap labor out of the market, reducing the pool of low-wage jobs. Daniel Mitchell of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, suggests that "businesses are not charities and that they only create jobs when they think a worker will generate net revenue. Higher minimum wages ... are especially destructive for people with poor work skills and limited work experience. This is why young people and minorities tend to suffer most." Put differently: If an employer needs someone to perform odd jobs, and he values the work at $2 per hour, he will not hire a person if the minimum wage is $7 per hour, thus keeping unemployment in low-wage brackets higher than it would otherwise be.

Welfare and Work Incentive
Minimum wages affect a person's willingness to work when labor is deducted from an unemployment benefit. According to Paul Kersey, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, "the more relief [unemployment benefit] that is offered, the less incentive there is to work. In effect, one works for the difference between potential wages and relief. For example, if the relief is $106 per week, and the offered wage is $110 per week, then in real terms, the individual is being asked to work for only $4.00 per week." Because the increase in net income is so small when working full-time at a minimum wage with 40-hour-per-week stipulations limiting income, compared with working zero hours and receiving a generous unemployment check, it is rational to avoid work.

Limited Anti-Poverty Benefit
James Sherk, a senior policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, argues that "the evidence shows that (1) a higher minimum wage causes employers to cut back on the number of workers they hire and employees' working hours; (2) the beneficiaries of higher minimum wages are unlikely to be poor because most minimum-wage earners are not poor; and (3) few individuals living in poverty work at minimum-wage jobs or any job." Federal labor statistics suggest that minimum-wage earners are more often part-time youth, including college students and working parents, who may be laboring for additional money but not for their survival. There is little evidence that heads of households work at minimum-wage jobs.
Problems With Minimum Wage | Small Business - Chron.com
******************************'

The article goes on to discuss effects on minorities and reduced training opportunities. And if you move on to CATO and Heritage Foundation and others who have done extensive research, they explain the upward push on costs and prices when the wages are artificially inflated and that also hurts most the people least able to afford those increases.

It's been awhile, but the last report I read stated that the last two times the minimum wage was raised, there was no net loss of jobs. I'll have to go looking for it but there is a very interesting article on the myths of raising the minimum wage.

In 1968, minimum wage had the highest spending power in history. The highest tax rate was 70%. Corporations weren't considered "individuals" and had to follow laws. The average CEO worked his way up in the company and made approx 57 times what his workers made, his goals were for the good of the company and it's employees. Today the average comes in from outside the company, his goals are to make as much money as he can and to heck with the company, hence we have so many bankruptcies. CEO's making 500-1000 times what their employees are making. Retirement plans being raided by corporations and people who've worked hard all their lives being cheated out of their retirement by people who've never really worked a day in their lives. Do you really think this is better than it was in 1968?

What other job have you ever heard of when someone fails so miserably he is paid $millions to leave the company?

 

[Foxfyre]

No, but the government can fix a living minimum wage, thereby reducing our income gap and putting more money in the hands of the working people and less in the hands of the obscenely wealthy. As I said before, no country can long survive with the majority of it's wealth in the hands of a few.

They've fixed and fixed and fixed the minimum wage. And with each increase, the pool of hardcore unemployed has increased among our poorest citizens. I think it is time to rethink that philosophy.

Unemployment
Some economists suggest that the minimum wage imposes a wage floor that prices cheap labor out of the market, reducing the pool of low-wage jobs. Daniel Mitchell of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, suggests that "businesses are not charities and that they only create jobs when they think a worker will generate net revenue. Higher minimum wages ... are especially destructive for people with poor work skills and limited work experience. This is why young people and minorities tend to suffer most." Put differently: If an employer needs someone to perform odd jobs, and he values the work at $2 per hour, he will not hire a person if the minimum wage is $7 per hour, thus keeping unemployment in low-wage brackets higher than it would otherwise be.

Welfare and Work Incentive
Minimum wages affect a person's willingness to work when labor is deducted from an unemployment benefit. According to Paul Kersey, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, "the more relief [unemployment benefit] that is offered, the less incentive there is to work. In effect, one works for the difference between potential wages and relief. For example, if the relief is $106 per week, and the offered wage is $110 per week, then in real terms, the individual is being asked to work for only $4.00 per week." Because the increase in net income is so small when working full-time at a minimum wage with 40-hour-per-week stipulations limiting income, compared with working zero hours and receiving a generous unemployment check, it is rational to avoid work.

Limited Anti-Poverty Benefit
James Sherk, a senior policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, argues that "the evidence shows that (1) a higher minimum wage causes employers to cut back on the number of workers they hire and employees' working hours; (2) the beneficiaries of higher minimum wages are unlikely to be poor because most minimum-wage earners are not poor; and (3) few individuals living in poverty work at minimum-wage jobs or any job." Federal labor statistics suggest that minimum-wage earners are more often part-time youth, including college students and working parents, who may be laboring for additional money but not for their survival. There is little evidence that heads of households work at minimum-wage jobs.
Problems With Minimum Wage | Small Business - Chron.com
******************************'

The article goes on to discuss effects on minorities and reduced training opportunities. And if you move on to CATO and Heritage Foundation and others who have done extensive research, they explain the upward push on costs and prices when the wages are artificially inflated and that also hurts most the people least able to afford those increases.

It's been awhile, but the last report I read stated that the last two times the minimum wage was raised, there was no net loss of jobs. I'll have to go looking for it but there is a very interesting article on the myths of raising the minimum wage.

In 1968, minimum wage had the highest spending power in history. The highest tax rate was 70%. Corporations weren't considered "individuals" and had to follow laws. The average CEO worked his way up in the company and made approx 57 times what his workers made, his goals were for the good of the company and it's employees. Today the average comes in from outside the company, his goals are to make as much money as he can and to heck with the company, hence we have so many bankruptcies. CEO's making 500-1000 times what their employees are making. Retirement plans being raided by corporations and people who've worked hard all their lives being cheated out of their retirement by people who've never really worked a day in their lives. Do you really think this is better than it was in 1968?

What other job have you ever heard of when someone fails so miserably he is paid $millions to leave the company?

But that's the difference in a government minimalist as myself and a big government person as yourself. You seem to put far more faith and confidence in government than I do.

You seem to want government to take down the rich. I want government to stay out of all of our business as much as possible.

You seem to want poverty eliminated by giving people what you think they should have instead of what they actually earn.

I have a lived a good long life now and have seen the minimum wage increased many times as well as most of the other government generated entitlements that we now have go into effect. And I am convinced of two irrefutable facts.

1. You cannot eliminate poverty through any means other than providing incentive and jobs that will allow people to work themselves out of it.

2. You cannot help the poor by taking down the rich or punishing the rich in any way. Any attempt by government to confiscate the wealth of the rich will only enrich somebody else who is already rich. And it will inevitably result in less employment, opportunity, choices, credit, and options available to the poor.

 

[Againsheila]

They've fixed and fixed and fixed the minimum wage. And with each increase, the pool of hardcore unemployed has increased among our poorest citizens. I think it is time to rethink that philosophy.

The article goes on to discuss effects on minorities and reduced training opportunities. And if you move on to CATO and Heritage Foundation and others who have done extensive research, they explain the upward push on costs and prices when the wages are artificially inflated and that also hurts most the people least able to afford those increases.

It's been awhile, but the last report I read stated that the last two times the minimum wage was raised, there was no net loss of jobs. I'll have to go looking for it but there is a very interesting article on the myths of raising the minimum wage.

In 1968, minimum wage had the highest spending power in history. The highest tax rate was 70%. Corporations weren't considered "individuals" and had to follow laws. The average CEO worked his way up in the company and made approx 57 times what his workers made, his goals were for the good of the company and it's employees. Today the average comes in from outside the company, his goals are to make as much money as he can and to heck with the company, hence we have so many bankruptcies. CEO's making 500-1000 times what their employees are making. Retirement plans being raided by corporations and people who've worked hard all their lives being cheated out of their retirement by people who've never really worked a day in their lives. Do you really think this is better than it was in 1968?

What other job have you ever heard of when someone fails so miserably he is paid $millions to leave the company?

But that's the difference in a government minimalist as myself and a big government person as yourself. You seem to put far more faith and confidence in government than I do.

You seem to want government to take down the rich. I want government to stay out of all of our business as much as possible.

You seem to want poverty eliminated by giving people what you think they should have instead of what they actually earn.

I have a lived a good long life now and have seen the minimum wage increased many times as well as most of the other government generated entitlements that we now have go into effect. And I am convinced of two irrefutable facts.

1. You cannot eliminate poverty through any means other than providing incentive and jobs that will allow people to work themselves out of it.

2. You cannot help the poor by taking down the rich or punishing the rich in any way. Any attempt by government to confiscate the wealth of the rich will only enrich somebody else who is already rich. And it will inevitably result in less employment, opportunity, choices, credit, and options available to the poor.

Do you really think those CEO's "earn" 500-1000 times what their workers make? Do you really believe mw workers "earn" so little that we have to subsidize their pay with welfare?