“Redistribute the wealth”

[Ray From Cleveland]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

'Wealth Redistribution' is a term propagated by the wealthy as an excuse to stop any form of change that favors working people.

What liberals want is NOT 'Wealth Redistribution' AT ALL. What we want is 'FAIR Wealth distribution' GOING FORWARD.

People should get paid on par with the productive value of their work. That's all.

Says who? People are paid by the value of their work according to their employer.

No they're not! They are paid the least that employers can get away with.

How many unions forced wages higher than the employers wanted to pay? How many union shops remained very profitable long after those wages went up?

How many companies left the state or country because of unions?

Yes, they are paid the least that an employer can pay. What's wrong with that?

Let me ask: don't you pay the least for people that work for you?

If you want a lawn care company, do you hire the one that gave you a quote for $50.00 a cut or the one that quoted you $25.00 a cut? If you need your transmission repaired on your car, do you go with the $700.00 estimate, or do you have the work done by the people that gave you the $1,200 estimate?

We all try to pay the least we can to have work done for us. Why shouldn't an employer?

 

[danielpalos]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

Well that's the issue. republicans believe in the market. If you do a job that requires a skill you get paid more. If you're good at your job, there are bidding wars. If you do jobs that are low skill, then there is plenty of people and no bidding war.
But the first thing is the min wage, we need to quit acting like people raise their entire family on a min wage income, because its for entry level jobs that usually teenagers do or people who want an easy second job...
Who Earns the Minimum Wage? Suburban Teenagers, Not Single Parents

We need a higher minimum wage to generate more tax revenue; the poor can help pay their share.

Huh?
I think we don't need a min wage, companies will do it when it's best for them.
Walt Disney World workers land deal for $1,000 bonuses and $15 minimum wage

We need an Institutional upward pressure on wages, not "individual".

And, that Only happened thanks to collective bargaining.

 

[buckeye45_73]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

Well that's the issue. republicans believe in the market. If you do a job that requires a skill you get paid more. If you're good at your job, there are bidding wars. If you do jobs that are low skill, then there is plenty of people and no bidding war.
But the first thing is the min wage, we need to quit acting like people raise their entire family on a min wage income, because its for entry level jobs that usually teenagers do or people who want an easy second job...
Who Earns the Minimum Wage? Suburban Teenagers, Not Single Parents

We need a higher minimum wage to generate more tax revenue; the poor can help pay their share.

Huh?
I think we don't need a min wage, companies will do it when it's best for them.
Walt Disney World workers land deal for $1,000 bonuses and $15 minimum wage

We need an Institutional upward pressure on wages, not "individual".

And, that Only happened thanks to collective bargaining.

Ok, no one is opposed to private unions (govt unions make zero sense), but they hashed it out in private, which is what they are supposed to do.

 

[danielpalos]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

Well that's the issue. republicans believe in the market. If you do a job that requires a skill you get paid more. If you're good at your job, there are bidding wars. If you do jobs that are low skill, then there is plenty of people and no bidding war.
But the first thing is the min wage, we need to quit acting like people raise their entire family on a min wage income, because its for entry level jobs that usually teenagers do or people who want an easy second job...
Who Earns the Minimum Wage? Suburban Teenagers, Not Single Parents

We need a higher minimum wage to generate more tax revenue; the poor can help pay their share.

Huh?
I think we don't need a min wage, companies will do it when it's best for them.
Walt Disney World workers land deal for $1,000 bonuses and $15 minimum wage

We need an Institutional upward pressure on wages, not "individual".

And, that Only happened thanks to collective bargaining.

Ok, no one is opposed to private unions (govt unions make zero sense), but they hashed it out in private, which is what they are supposed to do.

so what; We need an Institutional upward pressure on wages, not "individual".

 

[Tommy Tainant]

The lower the minimum wage the higher the level of corporate welfare. The tax payer foots the bill in any scenario.

 

[ScorpioRising007]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

Ok another idea similar to what I was getting at earlier is what is called a Negative Income Tax for those who makes less than a certain income level. Milton Friedman came up with this idea and I think he is onto something. The government pays you back half of what you earned if it is below a certain level. So lets say someone earns $20,000 a year. The government gives them back $10,000 so their income is in effect $30,000 a year.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

It's the monetary policy, yo.

Snip from a piece I was reading about it, which I found to be a correct assessment....

The country is divided into two groups. Those who haven’t recovered from the financial crisis versus those who are getting very rich because they're on the receiving end of the new money created by the Federal Reserve. The people who get to create the credit get to distribute the credit, which always results in a situation where money becomes unfairly distributed, as its allocation is no longer dependent on productivity.

As far as these so-called prominent progressives, I've yet to see any of them who understand our monetary policy. Or any that make the effort to see the problem through that window, for that matter. Quite frankly, they're about as deep as a mud puddle. Sorry, but it's true. If it's any comfort, the same thing goes for so-called prominent conservatives discussing wealth.

 

[danielpalos]

The lower the minimum wage the higher the level of corporate welfare. The tax payer foots the bill in any scenario.

Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

Ok another idea similar to what I was getting at earlier is what is called a Negative Income Tax for those who makes less than a certain income level. Milton Friedman came up with this idea and I think he is onto something. The government pays you back half of what you earned if it is below a certain level. So lets say someone earns $20,000 a year. The government gives them back $10,000 so their income is in effect $30,000 a year.

When I was younger and out of school, my first job was a minimum wage job. I left that job for another minimum wage job. I left that job for a other minimum wage job.

When I got sick of working for nothing, that's when I sought higher paying work. Then I decided to learn a field of work that paid better than all those jobs.

Point is, which horse will run faster, the one that you feed carrots to all day, or the one that you dangle a carrot in a string in front of him?

Today we have more jobs than people willing to do them. How is this possible? Simple. Rush Limbaugh explained it many times.

"Folks, if you pay people not to work, don't be too surprised when they don't."

 

[RealDave]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

A distribution is a mathematical & economic term to describe how certain attributes are "distributed" in a given population.

To redistribute the wealth is to change how wealth is "spread out" over the US households.

The last several decades. the redistribution was more wealth toward the richer & less wealth in the middle class.

This needs to be reversed.

You can do it through the tax code. Campaign finance reforms. Etc.

Republicans will never change it. Republivcan voters are too stupid to not vote Republican.

So you double the tax on rich people. How does that help you or I?

All that really does is give government more money to waste. And since we are 20 trillion in debt and still have deficits, the poor or working won't see a dime of it.

Deficits are going up. Ask your buddy Trump, your economy hero. The wealthy are getting wealthier under Trump & the Middle Class is going backwards,. Typical Republicanism & typical stupidity from Republican voters like you.

 

[RealDave]

...They believe that when you raise taxes (or in this case, wages) the rich guy just has to dig deeper in his pockets or do without one yacht. And don't laugh, because they really do believe it.

My choice is to either laugh or cry. OK, I know it's sad but it's also rediculous:

I mean, ya can't buy comedy like this!

He is paying taxes on it. Trump gave him a tax break.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

A distribution is a mathematical & economic term to describe how certain attributes are "distributed" in a given population.

To redistribute the wealth is to change how wealth is "spread out" over the US households.

The last several decades. the redistribution was more wealth toward the richer & less wealth in the middle class.

This needs to be reversed.

You can do it through the tax code. Campaign finance reforms. Etc.

Republicans will never change it. Republivcan voters are too stupid to not vote Republican.

So you double the tax on rich people. How does that help you or I?

All that really does is give government more money to waste. And since we are 20 trillion in debt and still have deficits, the poor or working won't see a dime of it.

Deficits are going up. Ask your buddy Trump, your economy hero. The wealthy are getting wealthier under Trump & the Middle Class is going backwards,. Typical Republicanism & typical stupidity from Republican voters like you.

Wait a minute. You mean to tell me that the wealthy were not getting wealthier under DumBama and the middle-class were not going backwards? You really live in your own little world, don't you?

And I see you once again deflected. So here's the question again: If we double the tax on the wealthy, how does that help you or me?

 

[KGB]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

Here’s the problem lefties don’t understand because they fundamentally lack the basic understanding on how capitalism works. Under socialism, wealth is a finite thing. There’s no incentive nor basis upon which to create additional resources or wealth, so it’s limited. We saw it time & time again. But under capitalism, there is no finite limit. Competition & ingenuity drive the model. You can go on creating forever because the well never runs dry. This system is a proven winner time & time again. The idea isn’t to redistribute wealth, but rather generate additional wealth. Only one system does that...

 

[HenryBHough]

From each according to their ability.
To each according to their
A wonderful to create a shortage of ability and
an abundance of need.

 

[Billy000]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

Here’s the problem lefties don’t understand because they fundamentally lack the basic understanding on how capitalism works. Under socialism, wealth is a finite thing. There’s no incentive nor basis upon which to create additional resources or wealth, so it’s limited. We saw it time & time again. But under capitalism, there is no finite limit. Competition & ingenuity drive the model. You can go on creating forever because the well never runs dry. This system is a proven winner time & time again. The idea isn’t to redistribute wealth, but rather generate additional wealth. Only one system does that...

You’re pretending socialist aspects can’t be mixed with a capitalist model. I’m all for capitalism, but unfettered capitalism does nothing besides besides make the wealthy more wealthy. It serves no purpose in creating a strong middle class or to minimize poverty. Only through government intervention can the middle and poor class benefit.

 

[Skull Pilot]

We could be simplifying government and lowering our tax burden with modern left wing policies,

we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs.

IOW you want to be paid for not working

Employment is at will in our at-will employment States.

Yes and if you choose not to work you don't get paid.

If you want to get paid get a job

What if I choose to work and can't get hired in a right to work State?

If you want to work you can find a job it might not be your first choice but then again it's still a job

And you can always work for yourself you know

 

[dblack]

If you want to work you can find a job it might not be your first choice but then again it's still a job

And you can always work for yourself you know

No way man. We're serfs. Life is a choice between enslaving yourself to a corporation or the government. Haven't you been paying attention?

 

[Claudette]

How about workers work to learn skills that afford them more worth to employers?

For what should they be given $15 per hour? Flipping a fry tray five times an hour?

If you work 40 hours a week at a wage that matches your skills, why should an employer pay you more?

If you cannot live on $10 per hour, isn't it your responsibility to improve your worth?

Bingo.

 

[danielpalos]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

Ok another idea similar to what I was getting at earlier is what is called a Negative Income Tax for those who makes less than a certain income level. Milton Friedman came up with this idea and I think he is onto something. The government pays you back half of what you earned if it is below a certain level. So lets say someone earns $20,000 a year. The government gives them back $10,000 so their income is in effect $30,000 a year.

When I was younger and out of school, my first job was a minimum wage job. I left that job for another minimum wage job. I left that job for a other minimum wage job.

When I got sick of working for nothing, that's when I sought higher paying work. Then I decided to learn a field of work that paid better than all those jobs.

Point is, which horse will run faster, the one that you feed carrots to all day, or the one that you dangle a carrot in a string in front of him?

Today we have more jobs than people willing to do them. How is this possible? Simple. Rush Limbaugh explained it many times.

"Folks, if you pay people not to work, don't be too surprised when they don't."

lol. Folks, there is no unemployment under Capitalism, only under payment.

 

[danielpalos]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

Here’s the problem lefties don’t understand because they fundamentally lack the basic understanding on how capitalism works. Under socialism, wealth is a finite thing. There’s no incentive nor basis upon which to create additional resources or wealth, so it’s limited. We saw it time & time again. But under capitalism, there is no finite limit. Competition & ingenuity drive the model. You can go on creating forever because the well never runs dry. This system is a proven winner time & time again. The idea isn’t to redistribute wealth, but rather generate additional wealth. Only one system does that...

lol. dude; the kgb knows even less about capitalism.