Bernie Sanders : This Grotesque Level of Income and Wealth Inequality is Wrong

[paulitician]

He does have a point. The rich are getting richer while the middle class and poor are getting poorer. Americans are realizing that their working more & more for less & less. We're defnitely going backwards as a nation. I gotta give Sanders props for speaking truth on this one.

 

[The Great Goose]

It is wrong.

when i was a kid, a family could have two cars and their own home on one unskilled worker's wage.

Bull.

So you are going tosit there, with a straight face, and deny that money loses value over time. And tell me that all the women in my childhood werent stay at home mums?

You idiot.

I'm going to tell you that unskilled workers never bought a home and two cars and supported a wife and kids.

That has nothing to do with inflation eroding the value of money. You moron.

I remember it very clearly.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Pretty illuminating. Income inequality based on hard work and risk taking should actually be celebrated. Income inequality due to corrupt people using their money and influence to create an extremely uneven playing field is something we should all join together to fight. Bernie is absolutely correct on that point.

So what could Bernie or anybody else do to stop it?

Thats the million dollar question... before we dive into it let me ask. Is it something that you think needs to be fixed?

Not at all. What needs to be fixed?

You go out, earn money, and if you don't make enough money, adjust your priorities.

Crying over how much more somebody else has is like crying because a guy has a better car than you, or he is better looking and gets better looking women. It doesn't do you any good.

Changing my own situation is what I would need to concentrate on--not changing somebody else's situation that won't benefit me at all.

Thats fine man, we've had this discussion many times before and you are not shy about your very selfish and self serving point of view. You are entitled to it, look out for number 1, good for you. I live with principles of compassion and believe that whats good for the community makes all of our lives better. I'm entitled to that position. Fortunately for me, more people share my perspective which is why our society and government has evolved like it has.

It sure has evolved, it's evolved into a bunch of takers and people that no longer have any integrity.

if you will not look after number 1, then who will?

If we look at what's good for the community? Isn't that a bit subjective, or do you actually believe that you are the sole arbiter?

I happen to think that most of our social programs are destructive--not good for the community. I think they promote laziness, irresponsibility, and they remove the incentive for people to be the best they can be in this life.

"If you pay people not to work, why is anybody surprised when they don't?
Rush Limbaugh

 

[jc456]

Income isn't distributed.

It's earned or not earned through various types of behaviors.

Productive versus irresponsible behavior accounts for a large portion of the inequality the leftists are railing against.






--------

True that income is earned but wealth is rewarded... Just look at our tax code. There is a definite advantage given to the wealthy While I see the reason and benefits for some of these incentives/advantages, I also understand the tremendous problem it is causing.

True that income is earned but wealth is rewarded

what does this mean?

 

[Slade3200]

Pretty illuminating. Income inequality based on hard work and risk taking should actually be celebrated. Income inequality due to corrupt people using their money and influence to create an extremely uneven playing field is something we should all join together to fight. Bernie is absolutely correct on that point.

So what could Bernie or anybody else do to stop it?

Thats the million dollar question... before we dive into it let me ask. Is it something that you think needs to be fixed?

Not at all. What needs to be fixed?

You go out, earn money, and if you don't make enough money, adjust your priorities.

Crying over how much more somebody else has is like crying because a guy has a better car than you, or he is better looking and gets better looking women. It doesn't do you any good.

Changing my own situation is what I would need to concentrate on--not changing somebody else's situation that won't benefit me at all.

Thats fine man, we've had this discussion many times before and you are not shy about your very selfish and self serving point of view. You are entitled to it, look out for number 1, good for you. I live with principles of compassion and believe that whats good for the community makes all of our lives better. I'm entitled to that position. Fortunately for me, more people share my perspective which is why our society and government has evolved like it has.

It sure has evolved, it's evolved into a bunch of takers and people that no longer have any integrity.

if you will not look after number 1, then who will?

If we look at what's good for the community? Isn't that a bit subjective, or do you actually believe that you are the sole arbiter?

I happen to think that most of our social programs are destructive--not good for the community. I think they promote laziness, irresponsibility, and they remove the incentive for people to be the best they can be in this life.

"If you pay people not to work, why is anybody surprised when they don't?
Rush Limbaugh

Rush is one of the biggest BS blowholes out there, you really shouldn't quote him if you want to be taken seriously. It adds no credibility to your arguments.

I agree that our welfare programs need serious reform. They do good for those who need it and are taken advantage by those who try to game the system. We can work to make these programs better but bitching about all the "takers" and proposing we cut them all is idiotic and unrealistic. You will never get anywhere with that argument. So it's your choice to be part of the solution or part of the problem.

 

[Slade3200]

Income isn't distributed.

It's earned or not earned through various types of behaviors.

Productive versus irresponsible behavior accounts for a large portion of the inequality the leftists are railing against.






--------

True that income is earned but wealth is rewarded... Just look at our tax code. There is a definite advantage given to the wealthy While I see the reason and benefits for some of these incentives/advantages, I also understand the tremendous problem it is causing.

True that income is earned but wealth is rewarded

what does this mean?

It means that everybody works and earns income... Those who obtain wealth, specifically, ownership of property or businesses are rewarded with rewards and continuous advantages. If you read a few more posts after I made that statement I explained some examples in our tax code, however it goes beyond that. I'm not complaining about these advantages, they are earned in our free market capitalistic system, but they present and an imbalance which in my opinion justifies a counter... ie higher tax rates on the wealthy and/or focused stimulus on the poor, middle class and small business owners.

 

[Richard-H]

The current 'system'' is wages based on the market value of the employee's job skills. The market value is determined by the lowest possible amount the the most desperate worker is willing to work for. The less workers are paid the more desperate they are. So employers do everything they can to make sure that workers are absolutely desperate.

The current 'system' does not take into account the value of the workers productivity, which is ALWAYS much higher than their wages. If it weren't there would be no profit for the employer.

Wages should be set relative to the value of an employee's productivity. There must be enough difference between the wages and productive value so that the employer has incentive to hire, but in many cases the difference is obscene.

Workers should be treated as business partners or private contractors. The fact that most are desperate (i.e. living pay check to pay check), mean that they have no defacto negotiating power. Employers take advantage of that which is basically immoral. It is a form of thievery.

Of course, as was proven in the 1970s and since, is that the workers are a bunch of idiots who, if given higher wages and the opportunity for credit, immediately start living beyond their means...they go into debt without a second thought. Workers need to learn to live within their means, to save for the things they buy and to not go into debt. Having a 'keeping up with the Joneses' society means that the economy keeps spiraling no matter what workers are paid.

That doesn't excuse employers from underpaying workers, but it is a two edge sword of an issue.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So what could Bernie or anybody else do to stop it?

Thats the million dollar question... before we dive into it let me ask. Is it something that you think needs to be fixed?

Not at all. What needs to be fixed?

You go out, earn money, and if you don't make enough money, adjust your priorities.

Crying over how much more somebody else has is like crying because a guy has a better car than you, or he is better looking and gets better looking women. It doesn't do you any good.

Changing my own situation is what I would need to concentrate on--not changing somebody else's situation that won't benefit me at all.

Thats fine man, we've had this discussion many times before and you are not shy about your very selfish and self serving point of view. You are entitled to it, look out for number 1, good for you. I live with principles of compassion and believe that whats good for the community makes all of our lives better. I'm entitled to that position. Fortunately for me, more people share my perspective which is why our society and government has evolved like it has.

It sure has evolved, it's evolved into a bunch of takers and people that no longer have any integrity.

if you will not look after number 1, then who will?

If we look at what's good for the community? Isn't that a bit subjective, or do you actually believe that you are the sole arbiter?

I happen to think that most of our social programs are destructive--not good for the community. I think they promote laziness, irresponsibility, and they remove the incentive for people to be the best they can be in this life.

"If you pay people not to work, why is anybody surprised when they don't?
Rush Limbaugh

Rush is one of the biggest BS blowholes out there, you really shouldn't quote him if you want to be taken seriously. It adds no credibility to your arguments.

I agree that our welfare programs need serious reform. They do good for those who need it and are taken advantage by those who try to game the system. We can work to make these programs better but bitching about all the "takers" and proposing we cut them all is idiotic and unrealistic. You will never get anywhere with that argument. So it's your choice to be part of the solution or part of the problem.

So where was Rush incorrect? We are paying people not to work and currently, have over 93 million Americans of working age that are not only unemployed, but not looking for a job either.

People can't take advantage of something that isn't designed to be taken advantage of. Democrats love government dependents. The more government dependents, the more likely Democrat voters.

So it's really less the people than it is the politics. DumBama doubled the food stamp recipients in this country. He and the Democrats created (by their accounting) 14 million more government dependents on Commie Care alone. They love it!

So how do working people fight the politicians that love dishing out the money?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is wrong.

when i was a kid, a family could have two cars and their own home on one unskilled worker's wage.

Bull.

So you are going tosit there, with a straight face, and deny that money loses value over time. And tell me that all the women in my childhood werent stay at home mums?

You idiot.

I'm going to tell you that unskilled workers never bought a home and two cars and supported a wife and kids.

That has nothing to do with inflation eroding the value of money. You moron.

I remember it very clearly.

By all means, provide more details to fill in the blanks.

 

[The Great Goose]

Thats the million dollar question... before we dive into it let me ask. Is it something that you think needs to be fixed?

Not at all. What needs to be fixed?

You go out, earn money, and if you don't make enough money, adjust your priorities.

Crying over how much more somebody else has is like crying because a guy has a better car than you, or he is better looking and gets better looking women. It doesn't do you any good.

Changing my own situation is what I would need to concentrate on--not changing somebody else's situation that won't benefit me at all.

Thats fine man, we've had this discussion many times before and you are not shy about your very selfish and self serving point of view. You are entitled to it, look out for number 1, good for you. I live with principles of compassion and believe that whats good for the community makes all of our lives better. I'm entitled to that position. Fortunately for me, more people share my perspective which is why our society and government has evolved like it has.

It sure has evolved, it's evolved into a bunch of takers and people that no longer have any integrity.

if you will not look after number 1, then who will?

If we look at what's good for the community? Isn't that a bit subjective, or do you actually believe that you are the sole arbiter?

I happen to think that most of our social programs are destructive--not good for the community. I think they promote laziness, irresponsibility, and they remove the incentive for people to be the best they can be in this life.

"If you pay people not to work, why is anybody surprised when they don't?
Rush Limbaugh

Rush is one of the biggest BS blowholes out there, you really shouldn't quote him if you want to be taken seriously. It adds no credibility to your arguments.

I agree that our welfare programs need serious reform. They do good for those who need it and are taken advantage by those who try to game the system. We can work to make these programs better but bitching about all the "takers" and proposing we cut them all is idiotic and unrealistic. You will never get anywhere with that argument. So it's your choice to be part of the solution or part of the problem.

So where was Rush incorrect? We are paying people not to work and currently, have over 93 million Americans of working age that are not only unemployed, but not looking for a job either.

People can't take advantage of something that isn't designed to be taken advantage of. Democrats love government dependents. The more government dependents, the more likely Democrat voters.

So it's really less the people than it is the politics. DumBama doubled the food stamp recipients in this country. He and the Democrats created (by their accounting) 14 million more government dependents on Commie Care alone. They love it!

So how do working people fight the politicians that love dishing out the money?

Whats worse is working for a job that doesnt need doing.

 

[Slade3200]

Thats the million dollar question... before we dive into it let me ask. Is it something that you think needs to be fixed?

Not at all. What needs to be fixed?

You go out, earn money, and if you don't make enough money, adjust your priorities.

Crying over how much more somebody else has is like crying because a guy has a better car than you, or he is better looking and gets better looking women. It doesn't do you any good.

Changing my own situation is what I would need to concentrate on--not changing somebody else's situation that won't benefit me at all.

Thats fine man, we've had this discussion many times before and you are not shy about your very selfish and self serving point of view. You are entitled to it, look out for number 1, good for you. I live with principles of compassion and believe that whats good for the community makes all of our lives better. I'm entitled to that position. Fortunately for me, more people share my perspective which is why our society and government has evolved like it has.

It sure has evolved, it's evolved into a bunch of takers and people that no longer have any integrity.

if you will not look after number 1, then who will?

If we look at what's good for the community? Isn't that a bit subjective, or do you actually believe that you are the sole arbiter?

I happen to think that most of our social programs are destructive--not good for the community. I think they promote laziness, irresponsibility, and they remove the incentive for people to be the best they can be in this life.

"If you pay people not to work, why is anybody surprised when they don't?
Rush Limbaugh

Rush is one of the biggest BS blowholes out there, you really shouldn't quote him if you want to be taken seriously. It adds no credibility to your arguments.

I agree that our welfare programs need serious reform. They do good for those who need it and are taken advantage by those who try to game the system. We can work to make these programs better but bitching about all the "takers" and proposing we cut them all is idiotic and unrealistic. You will never get anywhere with that argument. So it's your choice to be part of the solution or part of the problem.

So where was Rush incorrect? We are paying people not to work and currently, have over 93 million Americans of working age that are not only unemployed, but not looking for a job either.

People can't take advantage of something that isn't designed to be taken advantage of. Democrats love government dependents. The more government dependents, the more likely Democrat voters.

So it's really less the people than it is the politics. DumBama doubled the food stamp recipients in this country. He and the Democrats created (by their accounting) 14 million more government dependents on Commie Care alone. They love it!

So how do working people fight the politicians that love dishing out the money?

I'm so sick of the labels... Dems love dependents, Dems love big government... No, thats bullshit. The Liberal or Democratic ideology wants to help the poor and focus funds and programs towards giving them better education and more opportunity. I'm all for reforming our welfare programs so people get resources and not simply a check... Make it less comfortable and more motivating for them to get off of government assistance because a job will give them more money and more freedom and a better life. This should be the focus of our welfare programs. Then there's people like you and Rush who just bitch and bash on the entire concept of the program instead of presenting ideas to improve them. Makes you all part of the problem

 

[Slade3200]

The current 'system'' is wages based on the market value of the employee's job skills. The market value is determined by the lowest possible amount the the most desperate worker is willing to work for. The less workers are paid the more desperate they are. So employers do everything they can to make sure that workers are absolutely desperate.

The current 'system' does not take into account the value of the workers productivity, which is ALWAYS much higher than their wages. If it weren't there would be no profit for the employer.

Wages should be set relative to the value of an employee's productivity. There must be enough difference between the wages and productive value so that the employer has incentive to hire, but in many cases the difference is obscene.

Workers should be treated as business partners or private contractors. The fact that most are desperate (i.e. living pay check to pay check), mean that they have no defacto negotiating power. Employers take advantage of that which is basically immoral. It is a form of thievery.

Of course, as was proven in the 1970s and since, is that the workers are a bunch of idiots who, if given higher wages and the opportunity for credit, immediately start living beyond their means...they go into debt without a second thought. Workers need to learn to live within their means, to save for the things they buy and to not go into debt. Having a 'keeping up with the Joneses' society means that the economy keeps spiraling no matter what workers are paid.

That doesn't excuse employers from underpaying workers, but it is a two edge sword of an issue.

Nice analysis, I agree with it in part and under the right conditions. Fact is there are many jobs/positions out there that are not dependent on productivity. Not everybody is in a sales or production position. If a business owner fails to bring in business and the workers do not have the ability to produce because of lack of resources should they suffer? This is a risk that the business owner takes and in many cases the owner may have a swallow a few months of compensation to make salary because workers need job security. The reward is make up for on the other side should the business be productive and the owner can fill the tanks with the profits.

I am very much for businesses that have a profit sharing model, much like you laid out. It is just so variable depending on the type of business and duties of the workers.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Not at all. What needs to be fixed?

You go out, earn money, and if you don't make enough money, adjust your priorities.

Crying over how much more somebody else has is like crying because a guy has a better car than you, or he is better looking and gets better looking women. It doesn't do you any good.

Changing my own situation is what I would need to concentrate on--not changing somebody else's situation that won't benefit me at all.

Thats fine man, we've had this discussion many times before and you are not shy about your very selfish and self serving point of view. You are entitled to it, look out for number 1, good for you. I live with principles of compassion and believe that whats good for the community makes all of our lives better. I'm entitled to that position. Fortunately for me, more people share my perspective which is why our society and government has evolved like it has.

It sure has evolved, it's evolved into a bunch of takers and people that no longer have any integrity.

if you will not look after number 1, then who will?

If we look at what's good for the community? Isn't that a bit subjective, or do you actually believe that you are the sole arbiter?

I happen to think that most of our social programs are destructive--not good for the community. I think they promote laziness, irresponsibility, and they remove the incentive for people to be the best they can be in this life.

"If you pay people not to work, why is anybody surprised when they don't?
Rush Limbaugh

Rush is one of the biggest BS blowholes out there, you really shouldn't quote him if you want to be taken seriously. It adds no credibility to your arguments.

I agree that our welfare programs need serious reform. They do good for those who need it and are taken advantage by those who try to game the system. We can work to make these programs better but bitching about all the "takers" and proposing we cut them all is idiotic and unrealistic. You will never get anywhere with that argument. So it's your choice to be part of the solution or part of the problem.

So where was Rush incorrect? We are paying people not to work and currently, have over 93 million Americans of working age that are not only unemployed, but not looking for a job either.

People can't take advantage of something that isn't designed to be taken advantage of. Democrats love government dependents. The more government dependents, the more likely Democrat voters.

So it's really less the people than it is the politics. DumBama doubled the food stamp recipients in this country. He and the Democrats created (by their accounting) 14 million more government dependents on Commie Care alone. They love it!

So how do working people fight the politicians that love dishing out the money?

I'm so sick of the labels... Dems love dependents, Dems love big government... No, thats bullshit. The Liberal or Democratic ideology wants to help the poor and focus funds and programs towards giving them better education and more opportunity. I'm all for reforming our welfare programs so people get resources and not simply a check... Make it less comfortable and more motivating for them to get off of government assistance because a job will give them more money and more freedom and a better life. This should be the focus of our welfare programs. Then there's people like you and Rush who just bitch and bash on the entire concept of the program instead of presenting ideas to improve them. Makes you all part of the problem

They sure got you hook, line and sinker, didn't they? The Democrats want to help people? If that's so, why did they fight welfare reform back in the 90's?

It has nothing to do with labels, it has to do with record. It has to do with what we see with our own eyes such as those episodes in the grocery store line with the food stamp people. I myself had to evict a family from one of my apartments because of late rent payments. The male worked but refused to work one hour past 40. The female didn't work supposedly home-schooling the kids, but she could have taken a job on the weekends to make up for lost income. She refused my suggestion because she was getting 250 dollars in food stamps a month, and working would only decrease their stipend.

Yes, they had cable, they had the three cats and the large dog, they and one of their children all smoked cigarettes, they had the Obama Phone to boot.

Yes, the Democrats love government dependents. Do you really think Commie Care was an effort to make sure every American had health insurance? Think again, it was to create as many new government dependents as possible.

 

[bripat9643]

It is wrong.

when i was a kid, a family could have two cars and their own home on one unskilled worker's wage.

What level of inequality would be right, and what principle would make it right?

 

[bripat9643]

We could afford to do everything Sanders wants to do if paranoid right wingers would stop believing the terrorists will take over the United States if we don't spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined. The money is there. War profiteers and crooked politicians have fucked up its distribution.

You have a fantastic delusions about how much we spend on the military. It wouldn't pay for 1/4 of Bernie's schemes.

 

[The Great Goose]

It is wrong.

when i was a kid, a family could have two cars and their own home on one unskilled worker's wage.

What level of inequality would be right, and what principle would make it right?

People who work fulltime should be paid a livable income. Enough to support a family and get a homeloan.

Why not? We used to have that.

 

[bripat9643]

The current 'system'' is wages based on the market value of the employee's job skills. The market value is determined by the lowest possible amount the the most desperate worker is willing to work for. The less workers are paid the more desperate they are. So employers do everything they can to make sure that workers are absolutely desperate.

The current 'system' does not take into account the value of the workers productivity, which is ALWAYS much higher than their wages. If it weren't there would be no profit for the employer.

Wages should be set relative to the value of an employee's productivity. There must be enough difference between the wages and productive value so that the employer has incentive to hire, but in many cases the difference is obscene.

Workers should be treated as business partners or private contractors. The fact that most are desperate (i.e. living pay check to pay check), mean that they have no defacto negotiating power. Employers take advantage of that which is basically immoral. It is a form of thievery.

Of course, as was proven in the 1970s and since, is that the workers are a bunch of idiots who, if given higher wages and the opportunity for credit, immediately start living beyond their means...they go into debt without a second thought. Workers need to learn to live within their means, to save for the things they buy and to not go into debt. Having a 'keeping up with the Joneses' society means that the economy keeps spiraling no matter what workers are paid.

That doesn't excuse employers from underpaying workers, but it is a two edge sword of an issue.

Nice analysis, I agree with it in part and under the right conditions. Fact is there are many jobs/positions out there that are not dependent on productivity. Not everybody is in a sales or production position. If a business owner fails to bring in business and the workers do not have the ability to produce because of lack of resources should they suffer? This is a risk that the business owner takes and in many cases the owner may have a swallow a few months of compensation to make salary because workers need job security. The reward is make up for on the other side should the business be productive and the owner can fill the tanks with the profits.

I am very much for businesses that have a profit sharing model, much like you laid out. It is just so variable depending on the type of business and duties of the workers.

You think American business is a welfare agency. It isn't.

Furthermore, American businesses already do take it in the shorts for quite long periods of time when profits go negative. That's because it's normally cheaper to retain trained employees than train new ones when the business cycle is on the upswing.

 

[bripat9643]

It is wrong.

when i was a kid, a family could have two cars and their own home on one unskilled worker's wage.

What level of inequality would be right, and what principle would make it right?

People who work fulltime should be paid a livable income. Enough to support a family and get a homeloan.

Why not? We used to have that.

Why should they be paid what you call "a living wage" if they don't produce enough revenue to justify it?

Furthermore, you didn't answer the question. You answered some other question.

 

[Slade3200]

Thats fine man, we've had this discussion many times before and you are not shy about your very selfish and self serving point of view. You are entitled to it, look out for number 1, good for you. I live with principles of compassion and believe that whats good for the community makes all of our lives better. I'm entitled to that position. Fortunately for me, more people share my perspective which is why our society and government has evolved like it has.

It sure has evolved, it's evolved into a bunch of takers and people that no longer have any integrity.

if you will not look after number 1, then who will?

If we look at what's good for the community? Isn't that a bit subjective, or do you actually believe that you are the sole arbiter?

I happen to think that most of our social programs are destructive--not good for the community. I think they promote laziness, irresponsibility, and they remove the incentive for people to be the best they can be in this life.

"If you pay people not to work, why is anybody surprised when they don't?
Rush Limbaugh

Rush is one of the biggest BS blowholes out there, you really shouldn't quote him if you want to be taken seriously. It adds no credibility to your arguments.

I agree that our welfare programs need serious reform. They do good for those who need it and are taken advantage by those who try to game the system. We can work to make these programs better but bitching about all the "takers" and proposing we cut them all is idiotic and unrealistic. You will never get anywhere with that argument. So it's your choice to be part of the solution or part of the problem.

So where was Rush incorrect? We are paying people not to work and currently, have over 93 million Americans of working age that are not only unemployed, but not looking for a job either.

People can't take advantage of something that isn't designed to be taken advantage of. Democrats love government dependents. The more government dependents, the more likely Democrat voters.

So it's really less the people than it is the politics. DumBama doubled the food stamp recipients in this country. He and the Democrats created (by their accounting) 14 million more government dependents on Commie Care alone. They love it!

So how do working people fight the politicians that love dishing out the money?

I'm so sick of the labels... Dems love dependents, Dems love big government... No, thats bullshit. The Liberal or Democratic ideology wants to help the poor and focus funds and programs towards giving them better education and more opportunity. I'm all for reforming our welfare programs so people get resources and not simply a check... Make it less comfortable and more motivating for them to get off of government assistance because a job will give them more money and more freedom and a better life. This should be the focus of our welfare programs. Then there's people like you and Rush who just bitch and bash on the entire concept of the program instead of presenting ideas to improve them. Makes you all part of the problem

They sure got you hook, line and sinker, didn't they? The Democrats want to help people? If that's so, why did they fight welfare reform back in the 90's?

It has nothing to do with labels, it has to do with record. It has to do with what we see with our own eyes such as those episodes in the grocery store line with the food stamp people. I myself had to evict a family from one of my apartments because of late rent payments. The male worked but refused to work one hour past 40. The female didn't work supposedly home-schooling the kids, but she could have taken a job on the weekends to make up for lost income. She refused my suggestion because she was getting 250 dollars in food stamps a month, and working would only decrease their stipend.

Yes, they had cable, they had the three cats and the large dog, they and one of their children all smoked cigarettes, they had the Obama Phone to boot.

Yes, the Democrats love government dependents. Do you really think Commie Care was an effort to make sure every American had health insurance? Think again, it was to create as many new government dependents as possible.

Hook line and sinker? Your an idiot. I think for myself and don't identify myself with any party. good and dumb moves have been made on both sides. I respect the Dems a little more because they actually try and do shot while the Reps spend most of their time bitching and blocking.

I'm not denying that people take advantage of the system like the family you evicted... But people also need it and benefit from it. Focus on reform not pointless whining about eliminating something that is here to stay. Youre just wasting your breath.

 

[Slade3200]

The current 'system'' is wages based on the market value of the employee's job skills. The market value is determined by the lowest possible amount the the most desperate worker is willing to work for. The less workers are paid the more desperate they are. So employers do everything they can to make sure that workers are absolutely desperate.

The current 'system' does not take into account the value of the workers productivity, which is ALWAYS much higher than their wages. If it weren't there would be no profit for the employer.

Wages should be set relative to the value of an employee's productivity. There must be enough difference between the wages and productive value so that the employer has incentive to hire, but in many cases the difference is obscene.

Workers should be treated as business partners or private contractors. The fact that most are desperate (i.e. living pay check to pay check), mean that they have no defacto negotiating power. Employers take advantage of that which is basically immoral. It is a form of thievery.

Of course, as was proven in the 1970s and since, is that the workers are a bunch of idiots who, if given higher wages and the opportunity for credit, immediately start living beyond their means...they go into debt without a second thought. Workers need to learn to live within their means, to save for the things they buy and to not go into debt. Having a 'keeping up with the Joneses' society means that the economy keeps spiraling no matter what workers are paid.

That doesn't excuse employers from underpaying workers, but it is a two edge sword of an issue.

Nice analysis, I agree with it in part and under the right conditions. Fact is there are many jobs/positions out there that are not dependent on productivity. Not everybody is in a sales or production position. If a business owner fails to bring in business and the workers do not have the ability to produce because of lack of resources should they suffer? This is a risk that the business owner takes and in many cases the owner may have a swallow a few months of compensation to make salary because workers need job security. The reward is make up for on the other side should the business be productive and the owner can fill the tanks with the profits.

I am very much for businesses that have a profit sharing model, much like you laid out. It is just so variable depending on the type of business and duties of the workers.

You think American business is a welfare agency. It isn't.

Furthermore, American businesses already do take it in the shorts for quite long periods of time when profits go negative. That's because it's normally cheaper to retain trained employees than train new ones when the business cycle is on the upswing.

American business a welfare agency??? No