Top 8% Own 85%

[initforme]

So the general consensus is wages need to stay on the lower side. That's fine but more proof capitalism is about the wealthy.

 

[Pop23]

So the general consensus is wages need to stay on the lower side. That's fine but more proof capitalism is about the wealthy.

It appears that's how the left wants it

And we all know, the left gets what it wants

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That a joke right?
I have visited many Socialist countries. The ONE common denominator is there is always a super rich elite class in the background making their billions off the idiots who know what's happening but cling to the Utopian myth that if only they could change the current government all the endemic corruption will stop.

Not a joke actually, but socialism would be the EXACT wrong thing to do. I was responding to bripat. He assumed I was promoting socialism when I posted this thread. Not sure why anyone would assume that, but he and others in this thread did so.

Some on the left think greater government control or socialism is the answer. Some on the right think anyone who criticizes the current state, wants socialism.

Probably because you can only have Socialism or Capitalism.

You either want government to take money away from the people that earn it to give to others, or you believe that people should rightly keep what they earn. You really can't have both.

You missed my point entirely. As a libertarian bordering on an anarchist, I want government out of our lives entirely. So...how anyone in this thread concludes I want government to take people's income merely because I am pointing out the horrendous income inequality that exists today, are absurd and mistaken.

Income inequality means that some are making much more than others. That's the way a capitalist system works; the more you produce--the more you make.

If you believe in capitalism, then you should have no problem with how much other people make. That's the way a capitalist system works. If you do have a problem with income inequality, then obviously you have a problem with capitalism.

Are the rich supposed to collude to pay workers less like the examples I have shown? That isn't good capitalism.

They don't collude anything.

A worker is only worth as much as another person that will do the same quality of work for the same money. That's how wages are decided.

If you make $15.00 per hour, and tell your boss you want $18.00 per hour, but he could find other people happy to take your job for $15.00, that's the route he will take.

It's not just monkey jobs, it's all jobs including mine. If I tell my boss I need another two bucks an hour to stay on the job, he has to evaluate whether or not he can replace me and my quality of work. If he cannot, I make more money. If he believes he can, he tells me to take my demands and go pound a salt bag.

Big corporations are not the largest employer in America--small businesses are, and they are not colluding with anybody. The biggest problem we have in the US is foreign workers. That's because they screw up the supply and demand process. By allowing them to enter this country, they create an endless supply of workers. And as supply and demand dictates, the more supply and lower demand, the lower the price.

 

[WelfareQueen]

I find it utterly predictable that the moron OP has zero response to the following.



Our economic system has raised more people out of poverty around the world than any other economic system in human history. Why are people on the left so fucking ignorant?

Question: Name any economic system better than ours? Go ahead...I'm sure we'll all be waiting with baited breath.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The results are the results you have not proven that lower union membership is the cause

Union jobs pay more. Look at teachers or auto workers. Sorry you choose to be blind to the obvious.

Sure they pay more. That's what happens when you FORCE people to dish out money they want. But who ultimately ends up paying these wages?

I know exactly what unions in the automotive industry are about, that's why I drive a Toyota today and have the last ten years.

Never been happier. I can't even think of my mechanics name anymore. My Toyota has never left me stranded nor made me late for work that my last American made car was renown for. After 30,000 miles, my mechanic drove it more than I did.

My former mechanic was the person that gave me the tip. He explained how in the American auto industry, companies are forced to pay ridiculous wages and benefits whereas the Japanese put their money into quality engineering and parts. That's why they can give you a 100,000 mile seven year bumper-to-bumper warranty.

Yes the execs of US companies made a lot of bad decisions and made bad cars. That has nothing to do with Unions.

Sure it does, because in order for an American car company to stay competitive, they have to offer products at a reasonable or competitive price.

If much of the cost of the product goes to labor and benefits, then they have to cut somewhere in order to bring down the price of their product to compete with others. So they cut quality because they can't cut pay or benefits thanks to unions.

So you buy an American car, and before it hits 50,000 miles, it starts having all kinds of problems. Why? Because the parts and engineering are so cheap.

Trust me, I've delivered to many automotive plants in my time, and it's amazing any work gets done at all. In fact we don't even accept deliveries to automotive plants anymore because of all the problems with lazy union workers. It takes forever to get unloaded at these places.

They can stay competitive and produce a good product. In Germany auto workers make a lot more than here.

They don't make a "lot" more than here, at least not our union workers.

In Germany, they average around just under 70 bucks an hour in pay and all benefits. In the US, the average for pay and all benefits is about 75.

Because of competition, the unions can no longer make ridiculous demands. In Germany, they can because nearly the entire automotive industry in Germany is union, and they don't allow non-union plants to open.

Germany is more isolated than we are here. Over here, we are competitive so union shops have to keep pace with non-union shops which generally operate cheaper. That's why plants choose Right-to-Work states over others. In fact, GM's new plants are going to be built in Mexico where there are no unions; speaking of which, the German automotive plants here are not union either.

In Germany, their Constitution requires that government pander to workers. Over here, our Constitution does not.

 

[gipper]

Not a joke actually, but socialism would be the EXACT wrong thing to do. I was responding to bripat. He assumed I was promoting socialism when I posted this thread. Not sure why anyone would assume that, but he and others in this thread did so.

Some on the left think greater government control or socialism is the answer. Some on the right think anyone who criticizes the current state, wants socialism.

Probably because you can only have Socialism or Capitalism.

You either want government to take money away from the people that earn it to give to others, or you believe that people should rightly keep what they earn. You really can't have both.

You missed my point entirely. As a libertarian bordering on an anarchist, I want government out of our lives entirely. So...how anyone in this thread concludes I want government to take people's income merely because I am pointing out the horrendous income inequality that exists today, are absurd and mistaken.

Income inequality means that some are making much more than others. That's the way a capitalist system works; the more you produce--the more you make.

If you believe in capitalism, then you should have no problem with how much other people make. That's the way a capitalist system works. If you do have a problem with income inequality, then obviously you have a problem with capitalism.

Are the rich supposed to collude to pay workers less like the examples I have shown? That isn't good capitalism.

They don't collude anything.

A worker is only worth as much as another person that will do the same quality of work for the same money. That's how wages are decided.

If you make $15.00 per hour, and tell your boss you want $18.00 per hour, but he could find other people happy to take your job for $15.00, that's the route he will take.

It's not just monkey jobs, it's all jobs including mine. If I tell my boss I need another two bucks an hour to stay on the job, he has to evaluate whether or not he can replace me and my quality of work. If he cannot, I make more money. If he believes he can, he tells me to take my demands and go pound a salt bag.

Big corporations are not the largest employer in America--small businesses are, and they are not colluding with anybody. The biggest problem we have in the US is foreign workers. That's because they screw up the supply and demand process. By allowing them to enter this country, they create an endless supply of workers. And as supply and demand dictates, the more supply and lower demand, the lower the price.

If you don't agree that there is collusion and fraud going on between government and big business, then we can go no further....because you are not informed.

 

[Brain357]

Not a joke actually, but socialism would be the EXACT wrong thing to do. I was responding to bripat. He assumed I was promoting socialism when I posted this thread. Not sure why anyone would assume that, but he and others in this thread did so.

Some on the left think greater government control or socialism is the answer. Some on the right think anyone who criticizes the current state, wants socialism.

Probably because you can only have Socialism or Capitalism.

You either want government to take money away from the people that earn it to give to others, or you believe that people should rightly keep what they earn. You really can't have both.

You missed my point entirely. As a libertarian bordering on an anarchist, I want government out of our lives entirely. So...how anyone in this thread concludes I want government to take people's income merely because I am pointing out the horrendous income inequality that exists today, are absurd and mistaken.

Income inequality means that some are making much more than others. That's the way a capitalist system works; the more you produce--the more you make.

If you believe in capitalism, then you should have no problem with how much other people make. That's the way a capitalist system works. If you do have a problem with income inequality, then obviously you have a problem with capitalism.

Are the rich supposed to collude to pay workers less like the examples I have shown? That isn't good capitalism.

They don't collude anything.

A worker is only worth as much as another person that will do the same quality of work for the same money. That's how wages are decided.

If you make $15.00 per hour, and tell your boss you want $18.00 per hour, but he could find other people happy to take your job for $15.00, that's the route he will take.

It's not just monkey jobs, it's all jobs including mine. If I tell my boss I need another two bucks an hour to stay on the job, he has to evaluate whether or not he can replace me and my quality of work. If he cannot, I make more money. If he believes he can, he tells me to take my demands and go pound a salt bag.

Big corporations are not the largest employer in America--small businesses are, and they are not colluding with anybody. The biggest problem we have in the US is foreign workers. That's because they screw up the supply and demand process. By allowing them to enter this country, they create an endless supply of workers. And as supply and demand dictates, the more supply and lower demand, the lower the price.

I already gave several examples of corporations getting caught colluding to hold down workers wages. Yes it does happen. Most just don't get caught.

Right to work for less states aren't really doing that great.

 

[Brain357]

“Right-to-Work” States Still Have Lower Wages

Conclusion
This paper updates and confirms the findings of Gould and Shierholz (2011). No matter how you slice the data, wages in RTW states are lower, on average, than wages in non-RTW states.

As shown in great detail in Gould and Shierholz (2011), these results do not just apply to union members, but to all employees in a state. Where unions are strong, compensation increases even for workers not covered by any union contract, as nonunion employers face competitive pressure to match union standards. Likewise, when unions are weakened by RTW laws, all of a state’s workers feel the impact.

 

[SAYIT]

The "system" is rigged, for the wealthiest to stay the wealthiest... if you can not recognize this, then you are blind, and willfully ignorant.

A "fact" which is disputed by the truth you are too blinded by envy to see ... that most of America's wealthiest have modest roots and even those who inherited theirs have parents or grannies - the generators of the family's wealth - who had modest beginnings.

People still get rich here because they are bigger or stronger or faster or smarter or in the right place at the right time and manage to take advantage.

 

[Brain357]

The "system" is rigged, for the wealthiest to stay the wealthiest... if you can not recognize this, then you are blind, and willfully ignorant.

A "fact" which is disputed by the truth you are too blinded by envy to see ... that most of America's wealthiest have modest roots and even those who inherited theirs have parents or grannies - the generators of the family's wealth - who had modest beginnings.

People still get rich here because they are bigger or stronger or faster or smarter or in the right place at the right time and manage to take advantage.

And too much inequality slows the economy.
Inequality hurts economic growth, finds OECD research - OECD

 

[SAYIT]

Ah, the fallacy of trickle down economics still persists despite such strong evidence to the contrary. The rich get richer, keep their wealth and the middle and lower classes are the losers. It's actually trickle up, yet people still hang on to trickle down theory because it sounds like it should work (to them) and their pundits and politicians preach it - facts be damned. And isn't that the big problem we're facing in this country - the thinkers vs. the anti-intellectual fact-challenged crowd who consistently vote against their best interests due to some overhyped wedge issue, then bitch about the results.
As someone in the very top segment of the OP's pyramid, I just shake my head and wonder why the lower and middle classes don't overwhelmingly support the few politicians who really want to change the rules to help level the playing field (not wealth redistribution, but making everyone subject to the same rules). We see some of this support with Bernie Sanders, but he's running as a member of the rigged 2 party system so he never really had a chance despite the great effort.
It will take a Herculean effort to transform the system, and that will never happen if people continue to cling to debunked economic ideology and refuse to band together because their viewpoints are formed by some group of partisan pundits paid millions of dollars to divide the people of this great country. The Obama and Sanders campaigns have proven that grass roots movements can be extremely powerful, so why not channel that into a bipartisan effort to launch a third party? Ignore the pundits, find what people have in common (a lot more than the partisans want you to think), and band together to take serious action.

Killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

INEPTOCRACY: (Noun,- slang) a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves (or even try) are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yeah, it is just you. Myopia does that, try to see panoptically.

No, actually the well adjusted can live happily without being overly wealthy.

I'm sorry, my comment wasn't to question your wealth or happiness - even a homeless person living in a tent can be happy. Focus on the word Panoptic, that is, permitting the viewing of all parts or elements of an issue. We can't assume the 92% are all happy with such an outcome.

Why would someone even care why someone else is rich?

I don't get it

Paranoia? Jealousy?

What?

Lack of self esteem

Apparently so

I gave three steps that cures the problem.

But in one of those it means that liberal wealthy would have to stop being hypocrites and pony up the taxes THEY SAY THEY DON'T pay enough of.......

And the other two involve the left admit they, and their ideas have failed and caused much of the problem to begin with.

From what I can see, progressives like to create problems, but can't solve the problems they created in the first place.

Once again myopia is your problem, well not only yours, for people like you who believe they know the truth never learn; being pervicacious isn't a virtue.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Probably because you can only have Socialism or Capitalism.

You either want government to take money away from the people that earn it to give to others, or you believe that people should rightly keep what they earn. You really can't have both.

You missed my point entirely. As a libertarian bordering on an anarchist, I want government out of our lives entirely. So...how anyone in this thread concludes I want government to take people's income merely because I am pointing out the horrendous income inequality that exists today, are absurd and mistaken.

Income inequality means that some are making much more than others. That's the way a capitalist system works; the more you produce--the more you make.

If you believe in capitalism, then you should have no problem with how much other people make. That's the way a capitalist system works. If you do have a problem with income inequality, then obviously you have a problem with capitalism.

Are the rich supposed to collude to pay workers less like the examples I have shown? That isn't good capitalism.

They don't collude anything.

A worker is only worth as much as another person that will do the same quality of work for the same money. That's how wages are decided.

If you make $15.00 per hour, and tell your boss you want $18.00 per hour, but he could find other people happy to take your job for $15.00, that's the route he will take.

It's not just monkey jobs, it's all jobs including mine. If I tell my boss I need another two bucks an hour to stay on the job, he has to evaluate whether or not he can replace me and my quality of work. If he cannot, I make more money. If he believes he can, he tells me to take my demands and go pound a salt bag.

Big corporations are not the largest employer in America--small businesses are, and they are not colluding with anybody. The biggest problem we have in the US is foreign workers. That's because they screw up the supply and demand process. By allowing them to enter this country, they create an endless supply of workers. And as supply and demand dictates, the more supply and lower demand, the lower the price.

I already gave several examples of corporations getting caught colluding to hold down workers wages. Yes it does happen. Most just don't get caught.

Right to work for less states aren't really doing that great.

They're doing fine because they are attracting businesses over non-right to work states.

That's besides the fact that the cost of living is different depending on where you go. A $300,000 house here is a large beautiful house in a development. A $300,000 house in other places is almost the ghetto.

About eight years ago, I had a kid that moved here from New York to go to school. I generally charged at the time around $500.00 per apartment give or take. He told me that if I could magically take my property, move it to the outskirts of NYC, I could easily get $1,800 for each of my apartments.

While people in the south make less money, they also have a much lower cost of living. Watch HGTV sometime when people are buying houses, and take note of what $700,000 will buy you if you are looking for a home in the NE states. It's ridiculous.

 

[Pop23]

No, actually the well adjusted can live happily without being overly wealthy.

I'm sorry, my comment wasn't to question your wealth or happiness - even a homeless person living in a tent can be happy. Focus on the word Panoptic, that is, permitting the viewing of all parts or elements of an issue. We can't assume the 92% are all happy with such an outcome.

Why would someone even care why someone else is rich?

I don't get it

Paranoia? Jealousy?

What?

Lack of self esteem

Apparently so

I gave three steps that cures the problem.

But in one of those it means that liberal wealthy would have to stop being hypocrites and pony up the taxes THEY SAY THEY DON'T pay enough of.......

And the other two involve the left admit they, and their ideas have failed and caused much of the problem to begin with.

From what I can see, progressives like to create problems, but can't solve the problems they created in the first place.

Once again myopia is your problem, well not only yours, for people like you who believe they know the truth never learn; being pervicacious isn't a virtue.

Free your mind.

 

[Brain357]

You missed my point entirely. As a libertarian bordering on an anarchist, I want government out of our lives entirely. So...how anyone in this thread concludes I want government to take people's income merely because I am pointing out the horrendous income inequality that exists today, are absurd and mistaken.

Income inequality means that some are making much more than others. That's the way a capitalist system works; the more you produce--the more you make.

If you believe in capitalism, then you should have no problem with how much other people make. That's the way a capitalist system works. If you do have a problem with income inequality, then obviously you have a problem with capitalism.

Are the rich supposed to collude to pay workers less like the examples I have shown? That isn't good capitalism.

They don't collude anything.

A worker is only worth as much as another person that will do the same quality of work for the same money. That's how wages are decided.

If you make $15.00 per hour, and tell your boss you want $18.00 per hour, but he could find other people happy to take your job for $15.00, that's the route he will take.

It's not just monkey jobs, it's all jobs including mine. If I tell my boss I need another two bucks an hour to stay on the job, he has to evaluate whether or not he can replace me and my quality of work. If he cannot, I make more money. If he believes he can, he tells me to take my demands and go pound a salt bag.

Big corporations are not the largest employer in America--small businesses are, and they are not colluding with anybody. The biggest problem we have in the US is foreign workers. That's because they screw up the supply and demand process. By allowing them to enter this country, they create an endless supply of workers. And as supply and demand dictates, the more supply and lower demand, the lower the price.

I already gave several examples of corporations getting caught colluding to hold down workers wages. Yes it does happen. Most just don't get caught.

Right to work for less states aren't really doing that great.

They're doing fine because they are attracting businesses over non-right to work states.

That's besides the fact that the cost of living is different depending on where you go. A $300,000 house here is a large beautiful house in a development. A $300,000 house in other places is almost the ghetto.

About eight years ago, I had a kid that moved here from New York to go to school. I generally charged at the time around $500.00 per apartment give or take. He told me that if I could magically take my property, move it to the outskirts of NYC, I could easily get $1,800 for each of my apartments.

While people in the south make less money, they also have a much lower cost of living. Watch HGTV sometime when people are buying houses, and take note of what $700,000 will buy you if you are looking for a home in the NE states. It's ridiculous.

They still make less. And as I have shown, non union workers make less than union workers. All this making less leaves us with stagnant wages, growing inequality and a slow economy. That is bad for everybody.

 

[WelfareQueen]

I wonder if the OP will ever respond tot he following. Wonder what he's afraid of?



Our economic system has raised more people out of poverty around the world than any other economic system in human history. Why are people on the left so fucking ignorant?

Question: Name any economic system better than ours? Go ahead...I'm sure we'll all be waiting with baited breath.

 

[Brain357]

You missed my point entirely. As a libertarian bordering on an anarchist, I want government out of our lives entirely. So...how anyone in this thread concludes I want government to take people's income merely because I am pointing out the horrendous income inequality that exists today, are absurd and mistaken.

Income inequality means that some are making much more than others. That's the way a capitalist system works; the more you produce--the more you make.

If you believe in capitalism, then you should have no problem with how much other people make. That's the way a capitalist system works. If you do have a problem with income inequality, then obviously you have a problem with capitalism.

Are the rich supposed to collude to pay workers less like the examples I have shown? That isn't good capitalism.

They don't collude anything.

A worker is only worth as much as another person that will do the same quality of work for the same money. That's how wages are decided.

If you make $15.00 per hour, and tell your boss you want $18.00 per hour, but he could find other people happy to take your job for $15.00, that's the route he will take.

It's not just monkey jobs, it's all jobs including mine. If I tell my boss I need another two bucks an hour to stay on the job, he has to evaluate whether or not he can replace me and my quality of work. If he cannot, I make more money. If he believes he can, he tells me to take my demands and go pound a salt bag.

Big corporations are not the largest employer in America--small businesses are, and they are not colluding with anybody. The biggest problem we have in the US is foreign workers. That's because they screw up the supply and demand process. By allowing them to enter this country, they create an endless supply of workers. And as supply and demand dictates, the more supply and lower demand, the lower the price.

I already gave several examples of corporations getting caught colluding to hold down workers wages. Yes it does happen. Most just don't get caught.

Right to work for less states aren't really doing that great.

They're doing fine because they are attracting businesses over non-right to work states.

That's besides the fact that the cost of living is different depending on where you go. A $300,000 house here is a large beautiful house in a development. A $300,000 house in other places is almost the ghetto.

About eight years ago, I had a kid that moved here from New York to go to school. I generally charged at the time around $500.00 per apartment give or take. He told me that if I could magically take my property, move it to the outskirts of NYC, I could easily get $1,800 for each of my apartments.

While people in the south make less money, they also have a much lower cost of living. Watch HGTV sometime when people are buying houses, and take note of what $700,000 will buy you if you are looking for a home in the NE states. It's ridiculous.

What we know about RTW
To sum up, this study has found that worker-friendly states are significantly healthier, are more productive, have less poverty, and with citizens who enjoy longer life spans. In four of the seven measures (GDP per capita, poverty, insurance and life expectancy rates) so-called “right-to-work” states come out significantly (and statistically) worse.

These findings have broad policy implications in those states where lawmakers are wrongly considering RTW measures, and should inform the good efforts of union members and allies to quell those efforts. Instead of pursuing laws that actually lower the standard of living in their states, policy makers should look for ways to elevate everyone’s standard of living. Enacting RTW laws is not only misguided, but in fact counterproductive to achieving such ends. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, as ‘right to work.’ It provides no ‘rights’ and no ‘works’. Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining.”[26] The evidence suggests that Dr. King was correct in this belief, and that those who would advocate for a state to enact RTW laws would also be lowering the standard of living for that state’s residents.

Poverty, Productivity, and Public Health: The Effects of

 

[Brain357]

I wonder if the OP will ever respond tot he following. Wonder what he's afraid of?



Our economic system has raised more people out of poverty around the world than any other economic system in human history. Why are people on the left so fucking ignorant?

Question: Name any economic system better than ours? Go ahead...I'm sure we'll all be waiting with baited breath.

Are you happy with a slow economy?

 

[Campbell]

I find it utterly predictable that the moron OP has zero response to the following.



Our economic system has raised more people out of poverty around the world than any other economic system in human history. Why are people on the left so fucking ignorant?

Question: Name any economic system better than ours? Go ahead...I'm sure we'll all be waiting with baited breath.

http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-p25_averagehouseholdincom.png

Country Start Date of Universal Health Care System Type
Click links for more source material on each country’s health care system.
Norway 1912 Single Payer
New Zealand 1938 Two Tier
Japan 1938 Single Payer
Germany 1941 Insurance Mandate
Belgium 1945 Insurance Mandate
United Kingdom 1948 Single Payer
Kuwait 1950 Single Payer
Sweden 1955 Single Payer
Bahrain 1957 Single Payer
Brunei 1958 Single Payer
Canada 1966 Single Payer
Netherlands 1966 Two-Tier
Austria 1967 Insurance Mandate
United Arab Emirates 1971 Single Payer
Finland 1972 Single Payer
Slovenia 1972 Single Payer
Denmark 1973 Two-Tier
Luxembourg 1973 Insurance Mandate
France 1974 Two-Tier
Australia 1975 Two Tier
Ireland 1977 Two-Tier
Italy 1978 Single Payer
Portugal 1979 Single Payer
Cyprus 1980 Single Payer
Greece 1983 Insurance Mandate
Spain 1986 Single Payer
South Korea 1988 Insurance Mandate
Iceland 1990 Single Payer
Hong Kong 1993 Two-Tier
Singapore 1993 Two-Tier
Switzerland 1994 Insurance Mandate
Israel 1995 Two-Tier

 

[WelfareQueen]

I wonder if the OP will ever respond tot he following. Wonder what he's afraid of?



Our economic system has raised more people out of poverty around the world than any other economic system in human history. Why are people on the left so fucking ignorant?

Question: Name any economic system better than ours? Go ahead...I'm sure we'll all be waiting with baited breath.

Are you happy with a slow economy?

Who is....but the OP questions the underlying basis of our economic system. My question is simple. Name any economic system that is better?


The OP is an obvious left-wing moon bat pussy... I never expected any response from a brain dead moon-bat troll.....but if anyone else wants to take a shot at my question go for it.