The risk of income inequality

[KNB]

Shareholders can't get by on less than $5b/yr?

 

[rightwinger]

Do something for working americans and capitalists-------patriotism

Do something to discourage working and promote welfare------socialism.

Obamacare helps working Americans, so do educational benefits, unemployment programs all denounced as socialism

Hint to conservatives: Socialism is controlling the means of production. Taxes are not socialism neither are social programs

Let me see... If I make 11K a year I get decent supplement for Obamacare. But I need to make more so I can have car payment. So, I get the second job that increases by yearly salary to say, 17K. Looks good but wait, I get less subsidy now for insurance I don't need.

The incentive is not there to EARN more money when it is given to you first without anything in trade from the recipient.

Obamacare is a wage cap on the poor working class.

Surprised the left support it

-Geaux

Only fools think they can live without health insurance for long. Suckers bet

 

[rightwinger]

Do something for working americans and capitalists-------patriotism

Do something to discourage working and promote welfare------socialism.

Obamacare helps working Americans, so do educational benefits, unemployment programs all denounced as socialism

Hint to conservatives: Socialism is controlling the means of production. Taxes are not socialism neither are social programs

Yes they are, numskull. Social programs are where government provides a service (at gunpoint) that the market used to provide, like retirement programs.

Anarchists have such an odd view of society

That is why they are shunned

 

[Geaux4it]

Obamacare helps working Americans, so do educational benefits, unemployment programs all denounced as socialism

Hint to conservatives: Socialism is controlling the means of production. Taxes are not socialism neither are social programs

Let me see... If I make 11K a year I get decent supplement for Obamacare. But I need to make more so I can have car payment. So, I get the second job that increases by yearly salary to say, 17K. Looks good but wait, I get less subsidy now for insurance I don't need.

The incentive is not there to EARN more money when it is given to you first without anything in trade from the recipient.

Obamacare is a wage cap on the poor working class.

Surprised the left support it

-Geaux

Only fools think they can live without health insurance for long. Suckers bet

But they weren't . They just had insurance that didn't make them poor. IOW, what they could afford

The new norm- Not only did the government want you to buy homes you couldn't afford, now they are trying to make young people buy insurance they can't afford, or more to the point, need

-Geaux

 

[Katzndogz]

Shareholders can't get by on less than $5b/yr?

How many shareholders do you think walmart has, worldwide, how many?

There are 3.47 BILLION shares outstanding. Shareholders have certainly bought more than one share. But how far is 5b (a miniscule amount) divided among 3.47 b shares.

How many shareholders does Wal-Mart have? | ChaCha

 

[Brain357]

the govt and the debt are continuing to grow because of people who think as you do---------------"only the govt can save me from the evil rich"

Ah yes as I do. You seem to talk out of your butt a lot. And I'm terribly poor right? The government is growing because of the corporate welfare. Why do you think we have obamacare? If corporations were providing good benefits we wouldn't have it now.

You talk like a poor person who feels like a victim. maybe you're not, I really don't care.

Tell me what you think "corporate welfare" is. Give me 5 examples.

We have obamacare because those on the left see it as a way for the govt to take control of 1/6 of our economy. No one in the USA was being denied healthcare before ACA, NO ONE. uninsured did not mean untreated.

So poor people talk about wanting smaller government?

1. Subsidies.
2. Bailouts
3. Tax advantages
4. Grants
5. Government contracts

I certainly think Walmart is a great example of corporate welfare. We all know how rich the Waltons are. And there are lots of execs at that company making tons of money. But some of their employees are on welfare? So the Waltons get rich while the government takes care of their employees. That's a great formula if you like big government.

Wal-Mart's low wages cost taxpayers - Jun. 4, 2013

 

[rightwinger]

Let me see... If I make 11K a year I get decent supplement for Obamacare. But I need to make more so I can have car payment. So, I get the second job that increases by yearly salary to say, 17K. Looks good but wait, I get less subsidy now for insurance I don't need.

The incentive is not there to EARN more money when it is given to you first without anything in trade from the recipient.

Obamacare is a wage cap on the poor working class.

Surprised the left support it

-Geaux

Only fools think they can live without health insurance for long. Suckers bet

But they weren't . They just had insurance that didn't make them poor. IOW, what they could afford

The new norm- Not only did the government want you to buy homes you couldn't afford, now they are trying to make young people buy insurance they can't afford, or more to the point, need

-Geaux

I never needed health insurance until I did.

 

[Againsheila]

YOu may not have suggested a violent uprising, but you would condone it.
BTW, are you unsatisfied with your career?

No, actually, I don't condone violence. I'm stating a fact, that's it. Information is not advocacy. When the income inequality becomes too great, violence is the result. Let history be your guide.

I happen to love both my careers, my previous one in the military and my career now, thanks for asking.

What they don't understand is that under our system, violence will not be necessary. If we create too many poor because of stupid economic policy, then eventually there will be so many in the lower rungs that they will vote people into power who will make changes. When that happens, we will see a major shift in taxation so that the super wealthy do not benefit as much as they have, and more opportunity will open up for everyone.

I wish that were true, but the poor are less likely to vote at all. This leads to economic slavery.

Watch that video of the earthquake at Farrell's you'll notice the workers don't look like teenagers. The jobs the right wingers call starting jobs are now just jobs.

 

[dblack]

The 'income inequality' thing reminds me of the global warming debate. There's a real problem, that we ought to be taking seriously, but it ends up co-opted for a largely unrelated political agenda. And the problem gets ignored in favor of debated the agenda.

 

[Andylusion]

"$5b to shareholders." In one year. While the employees struggle to get by on food stamps.

So the right-wing argument is that the minimum wage workers at 29hrs/wk just have to sacrifice food, clothing, transportation and electric bills and invest that money in Wal-Mart. Then they will be shareholders and the wealth will trickle down to them.

Again, would you rather those employees earn zero? Because without those share holders who provided the capital to create those jobs, they wouldn't exist.

Is that what you want?

And the fact is, those share holders are going to get their dividends whether you like it or not, because if you don't pay, they'll sue the company, and win.

So there is no alternative. It's not negotiable point.

Therefore, every single penny in increased wages is going to come from customers paying higher prices.

 

[Andylusion]

Shareholders can't get by on less than $5b/yr?

lol.... do you not know how dumb that comment is? There is no "investor" who is getting $5 Billion.

That $5 Billion is divided up over millions of shares.

Each share, only got $1.39.

Shareholders can't get by on less than a $1.39? Well they could.... but they're not going to. I myself am a share holder in Walmart. Nearly all walmart employees are shareholders.

Why should I get paid less for my investment in Walmart? Who are you to say I should get less? Or the employees themselves, who are earning $1.39 for their shares. Why should walmart employees earn less for their shares?

It's not up to you, dude.

And even if it was, how much do you think we should earn from our shares? $5 Billion is only $1 dollar an hour to employees. What do you think it should be?

If you cut investors down to only 27¢ per share ($1 Billion to shareholders), we'll sue, and win. We have part ownership of the company, and we invested hundreds of billions into walmart, which is why they have 2.2 million jobs. We're not going to take only 27¢. Sorry. Not an option.

 

[Andylusion]

Obamacare helps working Americans, so do educational benefits, unemployment programs all denounced as socialism

Hint to conservatives: Socialism is controlling the means of production. Taxes are not socialism neither are social programs

Let me see... If I make 11K a year I get decent supplement for Obamacare. But I need to make more so I can have car payment. So, I get the second job that increases by yearly salary to say, 17K. Looks good but wait, I get less subsidy now for insurance I don't need.

The incentive is not there to EARN more money when it is given to you first without anything in trade from the recipient.

Obamacare is a wage cap on the poor working class.

Surprised the left support it

-Geaux

Only fools think they can live without health insurance for long. Suckers bet

I have for 20 years. What is your definition of "long"?

 

[Katzndogz]

No, actually, I don't condone violence. I'm stating a fact, that's it. Information is not advocacy. When the income inequality becomes too great, violence is the result. Let history be your guide.

I happen to love both my careers, my previous one in the military and my career now, thanks for asking.

What they don't understand is that under our system, violence will not be necessary. If we create too many poor because of stupid economic policy, then eventually there will be so many in the lower rungs that they will vote people into power who will make changes. When that happens, we will see a major shift in taxation so that the super wealthy do not benefit as much as they have, and more opportunity will open up for everyone.

I wish that were true, but the poor are less likely to vote at all. This leads to economic slavery.

Watch that video of the earthquake at Farrell's you'll notice the workers don't look like teenagers. The jobs the right wingers call starting jobs are now just jobs.

That's because the minimum wage is too high. It's like Europe where the minimum wage is so high, entry level jobs are careers and there is no foothold for the young people just entering the work force.

 

[Andylusion]

The 'income inequality' thing reminds me of the global warming debate. There's a real problem, that we ought to be taking seriously, but it ends up co-opted for a largely unrelated political agenda. And the problem gets ignored in favor of debated the agenda.

No, the problem is, one side thinks there is a problem, and the other does not.

It's not a problem, unless you are greedy. I don't care how much anyone else makes. If everyone else on this planet, got a pay raise tomorrow, from the most wealthy, to the poorest..... Why should I care how much anyone else is making?

I want everyone to succeed. It never has been an issue in my life, where I was bitter and envious, or angry, that someone else somewhere else, was making more money than me.

Why? Why not? Why does it matter?

Like I said before, if Warren Buffet doubles his income next year, how does that affect me? It doesn't. If Warren Buffet gets fired, and starts working at Walmart as a greeter, how does that affect me? It doesn't.

The only time that 'income inequality" is a problem for someone, is if that person is a greedy, envious, selfish, hateful, bitter person, that thinks it's wrong that others are doing better than themselves.

It's not a real problem. Greed and envy is the problem, not income inequality.

That's just how it is.

 

[Brain357]

The 'income inequality' thing reminds me of the global warming debate. There's a real problem, that we ought to be taking seriously, but it ends up co-opted for a largely unrelated political agenda. And the problem gets ignored in favor of debated the agenda.

No, the problem is, one side thinks there is a problem, and the other does not.

It's not a problem, unless you are greedy. I don't care how much anyone else makes. If everyone else on this planet, got a pay raise tomorrow, from the most wealthy, to the poorest..... Why should I care how much anyone else is making?

I want everyone to succeed. It never has been an issue in my life, where I was bitter and envious, or angry, that someone else somewhere else, was making more money than me.

Why? Why not? Why does it matter?

Like I said before, if Warren Buffet doubles his income next year, how does that affect me? It doesn't. If Warren Buffet gets fired, and starts working at Walmart as a greeter, how does that affect me? It doesn't.

The only time that 'income inequality" is a problem for someone, is if that person is a greedy, envious, selfish, hateful, bitter person, that thinks it's wrong that others are doing better than themselves.

It's not a real problem. Greed and envy is the problem, not income inequality.

That's just how it is.

So many are getting rich off all this corporate welfare, that's why it matters. The government continues to grow while the rich get richer. If Walmart employees didn't collect welfare the government could get smaller. And as long as all the execs are making millions of dollars you can't tell me they can't afford to pay more. Heck paying more might even increase sales. I tend to shop where they have the best people. I sure don't shop based on who has the highest paid CEO.

 

[Redfish]

The 'income inequality' thing reminds me of the global warming debate. There's a real problem, that we ought to be taking seriously, but it ends up co-opted for a largely unrelated political agenda. And the problem gets ignored in favor of debated the agenda.

No, the problem is, one side thinks there is a problem, and the other does not.

It's not a problem, unless you are greedy. I don't care how much anyone else makes. If everyone else on this planet, got a pay raise tomorrow, from the most wealthy, to the poorest..... Why should I care how much anyone else is making?

I want everyone to succeed. It never has been an issue in my life, where I was bitter and envious, or angry, that someone else somewhere else, was making more money than me.

Why? Why not? Why does it matter?

Like I said before, if Warren Buffet doubles his income next year, how does that affect me? It doesn't. If Warren Buffet gets fired, and starts working at Walmart as a greeter, how does that affect me? It doesn't.

The only time that 'income inequality" is a problem for someone, is if that person is a greedy, envious, selfish, hateful, bitter person, that thinks it's wrong that others are doing better than themselves.

It's not a real problem. Greed and envy is the problem, not income inequality.

That's just how it is.

So many are getting rich off all this corporate welfare, that's why it matters. The government continues to grow while the rich get richer. If Walmart employees didn't collect welfare the government could get smaller. And as long as all the execs are making millions of dollars you can't tell me they can't afford to pay more. Heck paying more might even increase sales. I tend to shop where they have the best people. I sure don't shop based on who has the highest paid CEO.

what exactly do you mean when you say "corporate welfare" ?

 

[Brain357]

No, the problem is, one side thinks there is a problem, and the other does not.

It's not a problem, unless you are greedy. I don't care how much anyone else makes. If everyone else on this planet, got a pay raise tomorrow, from the most wealthy, to the poorest..... Why should I care how much anyone else is making?

I want everyone to succeed. It never has been an issue in my life, where I was bitter and envious, or angry, that someone else somewhere else, was making more money than me.

Why? Why not? Why does it matter?

Like I said before, if Warren Buffet doubles his income next year, how does that affect me? It doesn't. If Warren Buffet gets fired, and starts working at Walmart as a greeter, how does that affect me? It doesn't.

The only time that 'income inequality" is a problem for someone, is if that person is a greedy, envious, selfish, hateful, bitter person, that thinks it's wrong that others are doing better than themselves.

It's not a real problem. Greed and envy is the problem, not income inequality.

That's just how it is.

So many are getting rich off all this corporate welfare, that's why it matters. The government continues to grow while the rich get richer. If Walmart employees didn't collect welfare the government could get smaller. And as long as all the execs are making millions of dollars you can't tell me they can't afford to pay more. Heck paying more might even increase sales. I tend to shop where they have the best people. I sure don't shop based on who has the highest paid CEO.

what exactly do you mean when you say "corporate welfare" ?

See my response to the last time you asked a similar question.

 

[Redfish]

Ah yes as I do. You seem to talk out of your butt a lot. And I'm terribly poor right? The government is growing because of the corporate welfare. Why do you think we have obamacare? If corporations were providing good benefits we wouldn't have it now.

You talk like a poor person who feels like a victim. maybe you're not, I really don't care.

Tell me what you think "corporate welfare" is. Give me 5 examples.

We have obamacare because those on the left see it as a way for the govt to take control of 1/6 of our economy. No one in the USA was being denied healthcare before ACA, NO ONE. uninsured did not mean untreated.

So poor people talk about wanting smaller government?

1. Subsidies.
2. Bailouts
3. Tax advantages
4. Grants
5. Government contracts

I certainly think Walmart is a great example of corporate welfare. We all know how rich the Waltons are. And there are lots of execs at that company making tons of money. But some of their employees are on welfare? So the Waltons get rich while the government takes care of their employees. That's a great formula if you like big government.

Wal-Mart's low wages cost taxpayers - Jun. 4, 2013

1. very few corporations get subsidies, do you know what a subsidy is?
2. bailouts are a form of welfare, democrats always favor bailouts. corporations should be allowed to fail, the GM bailout was to save the UAW, not GM
3. the tax code was written by congress, congress has been controlled by democrats for most of the last 75 years
4. Grants are given for a specific study, like the ones to the fools that claim that man is destroying the planet by driving SUVs. Again, dems vote for them.
5. govt contracts are not welfare, is it welfare when the govt contracts with a company to build a destroyer or a tank? Is it welfare when the govt contracts with a company to build a bridge?

last time I checked, no one was forced to work for walmart. Do you know that walmart gives shares of stock to employees and makes them owners of the company?

 

[dblack]

The 'income inequality' thing reminds me of the global warming debate. There's a real problem, that we ought to be taking seriously, but it ends up co-opted for a largely unrelated political agenda. And the problem gets ignored in favor of debated the agenda.

No, the problem is, one side thinks there is a problem, and the other does not.

It's not a problem, unless you are greedy. I don't care how much anyone else makes. If everyone else on this planet, got a pay raise tomorrow, from the most wealthy, to the poorest..... Why should I care how much anyone else is making?

I want everyone to succeed. It never has been an issue in my life, where I was bitter and envious, or angry, that someone else somewhere else, was making more money than me.

Why? Why not? Why does it matter?

Like I said before, if Warren Buffet doubles his income next year, how does that affect me? It doesn't. If Warren Buffet gets fired, and starts working at Walmart as a greeter, how does that affect me? It doesn't.

The only time that 'income inequality" is a problem for someone, is if that person is a greedy, envious, selfish, hateful, bitter person, that thinks it's wrong that others are doing better than themselves.

It's not a real problem. Greed and envy is the problem, not income inequality.

That's just how it is.

I have no problem with income or wealth disparity resulting from voluntary free market exchange. But I think there's plenty of evidence that wealth and power are being consolidated through other means.

 

[Andylusion]

No, actually, I don't condone violence. I'm stating a fact, that's it. Information is not advocacy. When the income inequality becomes too great, violence is the result. Let history be your guide.

I happen to love both my careers, my previous one in the military and my career now, thanks for asking.

What they don't understand is that under our system, violence will not be necessary. If we create too many poor because of stupid economic policy, then eventually there will be so many in the lower rungs that they will vote people into power who will make changes. When that happens, we will see a major shift in taxation so that the super wealthy do not benefit as much as they have, and more opportunity will open up for everyone.

I wish that were true, but the poor are less likely to vote at all. This leads to economic slavery.

Watch that video of the earthquake at Farrell's you'll notice the workers don't look like teenagers. The jobs the right wingers call starting jobs are now just jobs.

One point.... Right-wingers like myself didn't say that all minimum wage jobs are in fact starting jobs. We said they should be starting jobs.

Flipping burgers at Wendy's should be a transitional job. But that is not up to society, or the economy, or government, to make that job a transitional job.

It's up to the employee to make it a transitional starting job.

Most employees at Wendy's when I was there, were only there temporarily.

But there was a lady there, who was a shift manager, and had been for many years. One day I learned that she had gone to college, and completed an architecture degree. I stood there looking at her like she was nutz, and asked why was she still there? Well... because this job is close to home, and my kids like the schools, and this job gives me flexibility to make my own shifts........

Here was a lady making $25K to $30K tops, with a degree as an Architect, with a starting pay of $34K.... and she was staying at Wendy's.

Now am I saying all older people at Wendy's are people with degrees choosing to stay in low paying jobs?

No, there was also and elderly man that worked in the back cleaning dishes, who was a retired auto mechanic working there just to have something to do.

Now am I saying that all older people at Wendy's are retired people doing the job for fun?

No, there was also a welfare lady, who on her first day told us she was only working until she could qualify for welfare again, and even told us the exact day she qualified. Sure enough on that day she left.

Now am I saying that all older people are welfare leeches, just working until they qualify again?

No, there was also an older woman who made Wendy's her career, and had worked her way up to store manager, and today runs her own store.

Now am I saying that all older people are making Wendy's their career and working their way up to owning a store, or a corporate job?

No, there was also a Romanian guy who immigrated to escape the civil war back in the day. He worked there because he had no skills, no money, and not even a car. He saved up money... while feeding a family of four.... and bought a car, got another job, and last I heard from him, he was store manager of a Hertz Rent-a-Car.

What is my point.....

My point is, the reason people were there, was by choice. No one is 'trapped' at Wendy's or any other job. This isn't China. You own your own labor. Choice.

It's not anyone else's job to make these people improve themselves, and move on. If a lady with a degree in architecture, chooses to remain a Wendy's employee, that's her choice, not ours.

When you artificially change the labor costs, you cause those people to lose their jobs. You make them worse off.