“Redistribute the wealth”

[Markle]

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

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

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

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

As you know, while the middle-income brackets have shrunk, the upper-income brackets are where they have gone.

As for what income redistribution would look like, see ObamaCare.

What difference does it make what someone could live comfortably on in the 1960's? They could not live comfortably on the minimum wage, nor did anyone expect to live on minimum wage. I started bagging groceries in 1960 for $0.85 per hour plus tips. The minimum wage was $1.00 per hour. So you're saying that someone earning ten times that could live comfortably. More than true today. If the minimum wage in your area is $7.50 per hour, you can live comfortably on $75.00 per hour. I could not, but you say you could.

good work!

 

[Markle]

You are such an idiot. The top 3 wealthiest people in this country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers. In your dumbass mind that doesn’t matter and any attempt at closing that gap is automatically the elimination of the wealthy class. Is your simple mind not capable of the slightest bit of nuanced critical thinking?

So what? Did they reach in your pocket and take anything? Nope.

Here are the top five. I believe they're all Progressives. All, except the old-timer Warren Buffett, have contributed entire industries which have created thousands of millionaires and millions of well-paying jobs.

In your mind, this is a BAD THING? How? Do they not pay taxes? Do their millions of workers not pay taxes?

#1 Bill Gates $89 B 62 Medina, WA Microsoft
#2 Jeff Bezos $81.5 B 54 Seattle, WA Amazon.com
#3 Warren Buffett $78 B 87 Omaha, NE Berkshire Hathaway
#4 Mark Zuckerberg $71 B 34 Palo Alto, CA Facebook
#5 Larry Ellison $59 B 74 Woodside, CA software

Forbes 400

 

[theHawk]

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

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

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

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

It means get off your lazy ass and work instead of stealing money from the people that do work.

 

[Markle]

Back to your topic their has to be a way to do it and the only way I can figure it out is to cap the CEO at something like ...they can only make say 20 times more than their lowest employees...( It was a liberal idea floating around the west coast a few years ago) I wrote a topic on it here and my fellow cons hated it.


I can't find my exact thread but I posted it a few times

Former President Bill Clinton tried to do just that. The result is the astronomical pay packages we see today. So yes, it was an idea floated years ago. Clinton's financial advisor told him he was crazy but he went ahead. Glad you admit how poorly it worked out.

 

[DOTR]

Where is Pinochet when you need him?

 

[Markle]

Okay, let’s pretend every low wage worker did this, who would be left behind to work those low wage jobs that are the backbone of the American work force? You might conveniently say teenagers, but the demand of jobs would greatly outnumber them and they would only work seasonally.

That's been available for decades, ever since my first "real" job in 1960 where I was paid $0.85 per hour plus tips. Guess what, it never entered my mind that I was able to set up housekeeping with a family of my own. I worked hard, did a good job and my pay increased although no were near what it would take to set up housekeeping. When I started getting paid more to oversee and train the bagboys, they hired another kid 16 years old at $0.85 per hour and the cycle continued.

 

[Markle]

Here you go:

Redistribution of Wealth means making powerless people all equally poor while the Corrupt&Powerful seize most of the wealth for themselves.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

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

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

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

Why is it you people assume that working 40 hours a week and no more is some magic number?

No one who has ever become a financial success has ever worked just 40 hours a week.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Wealth inequality is driven by the rise in power of multi national corporations.

Its true in the uk and probably true in the US.

Its very simple. If you dont accept this shit wage we will move or factory to India or China and then you will get nothing.

At that point any notion that you get paid what you are worth is gone.

So all the jobs move to the developing world and Capital gets to dictate everything.

Western countries are always going to be vulnerable to this because we are so wealthy compared to the third world.

The answer to the problem is very simple. We raise the standards of living in the third world. When there is more equality between nations there is less opportunity to play workers off against each other.

 

[Mac1958]

As another poster has said, addressing inequality and maintaining a strong safety net is very good social insurance against revolution.

No, not armed revolution. Electoral revolution. Cultural revolution. The libertarians in control of the GOP somehow don't or won't or can't see this.
.

 

[dblack]

As another poster has said, addressing inequality and maintaining a strong safety net is very good social insurance against revolution.

No, not armed revolution. Electoral revolution. Cultural revolution. The libertarians in control of the GOP somehow don't or won't or can't see this.
.

Libertarians have taken control of the GOP!?!?!

Wow... how did i miss that?

 

[danielpalos]

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

Gee, automate industry, how did no one think of that until now?

Try paying people according to their skill level and encourage them to get some.

at fifteen dollars an hour, Labor will be more capitally motivated to work. San Francisco and Seattle are examples.

With unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, Labor can focus on improving their skill sets and returning to the labor market at the most opportune time.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wealth inequality is driven by the rise in power of multi national corporations.

Its true in the uk and probably true in the US.

Its very simple. If you dont accept this shit wage we will move or factory to India or China and then you will get nothing.

At that point any notion that you get paid what you are worth is gone.

So all the jobs move to the developing world and Capital gets to dictate everything.

Western countries are always going to be vulnerable to this because we are so wealthy compared to the third world.

The answer to the problem is very simple. We raise the standards of living in the third world. When there is more equality between nations there is less opportunity to play workers off against each other.

The situation is like this: we want cheap products. We want strong growth in the market to secure our retirement accounts or personal investments. We want good paying jobs.

The problem with that is we can't have all three. We had to choose, and we chose strong growth and cheap products. If you are going to have strong growth and cheap products, you are not going to get good paying monkey jobs. Those days are long gone. They are not coming back.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

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

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

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

Define what it is to live "comfortably", Billy? Should a family of 4 be able to live "comfortably" off of a minimum wage job? Should that comfort include things like cell phones...50" flat screens...expensive sneakers...vacations...movie nights out...? Just what does your "radical change" include? You say you think it needs to be done at the same time you admit that you don't have the faintest idea HOW to do it! How can you demand radical change when you don't have solutions?

Lol if someone is making minimum wage has 2 kids, they could definitely not afford spending hundreds of dollars on entertainment monthly at the risk of starving themselves.

So why is anybody who works minimum wage having kids? That's the rich guys fault?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Wealth inequality is driven by the rise in power of multi national corporations.

Its true in the uk and probably true in the US.

Its very simple. If you dont accept this shit wage we will move or factory to India or China and then you will get nothing.

At that point any notion that you get paid what you are worth is gone.

So all the jobs move to the developing world and Capital gets to dictate everything.

Western countries are always going to be vulnerable to this because we are so wealthy compared to the third world.

The answer to the problem is very simple. We raise the standards of living in the third world. When there is more equality between nations there is less opportunity to play workers off against each other.

The situation is like this: we want cheap products. We want strong growth in the market to secure our retirement accounts or personal investments. We want good paying jobs.

The problem with that is we can't have all three. We had to choose, and we chose strong growth and cheap products. If you are going to have strong growth and cheap products, you are not going to get good paying monkey jobs. Those days are long gone. They are not coming back.

I dont really know what the answer to it all is. At some point the chinese will reject hard work and low pay and those jobs will move to africa or somewhere else that is poor. One thing that is certain is that the 1% will not lose out.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

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

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

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

So you don't want someone working 40 hrs a week living in poverty? Would that be a single person, a couple, a couple with a single child or a couple with multiple children? Would they have to have all the cable channels, the latest Iphone technology or would it be alright for their entertainment systems to be a bit more modest?

I think you see where I'm going here, there's a lot more to determine lifestyle than just income. So tell the class, what lifestyle should a 40 hr minimum wage job support and for how many?

.

Why are you shaming poor people for spending money on things to entertain themselves? Are they just supposed to eat, sleep, and die with no joy in their lives? I would consider the cost of entertainment to be critical to one’a well being. The problem would be spending too much but that isn’t something poor people do.

Billy, how do you think foreigners do it in this country? They come here with twenty cents in their pockets barely knowing the language. They work night and day saving every penny they earn. When they have enough, they open up or buy a convenience store, beverage store, sub shop. Others use their money to advance their education if they want to work for somebody else.

So why don't Americans do this? Because they want that 70" big screen. They want the latest iPhone. They want three of the latest video game systems. They want the nicest car they can afford. They want premium cable and internet service. Most of all, they only want to work 40 hours or less a week which you can't do if you're running your own business.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wealth inequality is driven by the rise in power of multi national corporations.

Its true in the uk and probably true in the US.

Its very simple. If you dont accept this shit wage we will move or factory to India or China and then you will get nothing.

At that point any notion that you get paid what you are worth is gone.

So all the jobs move to the developing world and Capital gets to dictate everything.

Western countries are always going to be vulnerable to this because we are so wealthy compared to the third world.

The answer to the problem is very simple. We raise the standards of living in the third world. When there is more equality between nations there is less opportunity to play workers off against each other.

The situation is like this: we want cheap products. We want strong growth in the market to secure our retirement accounts or personal investments. We want good paying jobs.

The problem with that is we can't have all three. We had to choose, and we chose strong growth and cheap products. If you are going to have strong growth and cheap products, you are not going to get good paying monkey jobs. Those days are long gone. They are not coming back.

I dont really know what the answer to it all is. At some point the chinese will reject hard work and low pay and those jobs will move to africa or somewhere else that is poor. One thing that is certain is that the 1% will not lose out.

The answer is to promote domestic products. It's the American consumer in charge of all this. We don't care where we get our products from, who we put out of work, or what those workers are paid. All we care about is price. Until that attitude changes, it will remain like this forever.

 

[Mac1958]

As another poster has said, addressing inequality and maintaining a strong safety net is very good social insurance against revolution.

No, not armed revolution. Electoral revolution. Cultural revolution. The libertarians in control of the GOP somehow don't or won't or can't see this.
.

Libertarians have taken control of the GOP!?!?!

Wow... how did i miss that?

I dunno!
.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Wealth inequality is driven by the rise in power of multi national corporations.

Its true in the uk and probably true in the US.

Its very simple. If you dont accept this shit wage we will move or factory to India or China and then you will get nothing.

At that point any notion that you get paid what you are worth is gone.

So all the jobs move to the developing world and Capital gets to dictate everything.

Western countries are always going to be vulnerable to this because we are so wealthy compared to the third world.

The answer to the problem is very simple. We raise the standards of living in the third world. When there is more equality between nations there is less opportunity to play workers off against each other.

The situation is like this: we want cheap products. We want strong growth in the market to secure our retirement accounts or personal investments. We want good paying jobs.

The problem with that is we can't have all three. We had to choose, and we chose strong growth and cheap products. If you are going to have strong growth and cheap products, you are not going to get good paying monkey jobs. Those days are long gone. They are not coming back.

I dont really know what the answer to it all is. At some point the chinese will reject hard work and low pay and those jobs will move to africa or somewhere else that is poor. One thing that is certain is that the 1% will not lose out.

The answer is to promote domestic products. It's the American consumer in charge of all this. We don't care where we get our products from, who we put out of work, or what those workers are paid. All we care about is price. Until that attitude changes, it will remain like this forever.

Im not sure Ray. In many instances the actual products dont even exist any more. In the UK it is almost impossible to buy british made clothing , for example. The same goes for hi tech stuff. There are no uk firms waiting to pick up the slack.

There was a report on the news here about a famous youth brand called Superdry who pay Indian workers something like 29p an hour to make expensive clothing. So lets say you reject Supedry you still have no choice becuse all the other brands are doing the same and there is no ethical alternative.

Inequality ensures that home produced will never be able to compete.

 

[Oldstyle]

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

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

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

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

Define what it is to live "comfortably", Billy? Should a family of 4 be able to live "comfortably" off of a minimum wage job? Should that comfort include things like cell phones...50" flat screens...expensive sneakers...vacations...movie nights out...? Just what does your "radical change" include? You say you think it needs to be done at the same time you admit that you don't have the faintest idea HOW to do it! How can you demand radical change when you don't have solutions?

Lol if someone is making minimum wage has 2 kids, they could definitely not afford spending hundreds of dollars on entertainment monthly at the risk of starving themselves.

That's reality, Billy. You seem to want to change that. My question for you is what should minimum wage provide? You seem to think it should provide a "comfortable" living. I think you're delusional. "Comfort" is derived from gradually moving up the employment ladder! It always has worked that way and always SHOULD work that way! Artificially setting wage levels almost never produces the results that people like you desire...something you'd grasp if you had even a rudimentary knowledge of economics.