CDZ The Income Inequality Charade

[DandyDonovan]

Your words were, "You miss the point. We are to provide for the general welfare not the general malfare.

We should be solving for actual socioeconomic phenomena, not right wing political fantasy."

I don't understand the correlation between your earlier post and what you just posted.
I am thoroughly confused.

Our welfare clause is a general power; it must cover any exigency if not a common defense issue.

I see.....

Congress is delegated Power to solve our problems not make excuses.

Then you must be thoroughly pissed at BOTH parties, because clearly neither side in Congress actually wants to solve anything. Yet , strangely, I've never heard you post boo about Democrats, all you EVER do is mouth off about the right...

the democrats have healthcare reform and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

the right wing is simply useless.

Does a $15 minimum wage actually help anyone if prices on everything double as a result

 

[danielpalos]

Our welfare clause is a general power; it must cover any exigency if not a common defense issue.

I see.....

Congress is delegated Power to solve our problems not make excuses.

Then you must be thoroughly pissed at BOTH parties, because clearly neither side in Congress actually wants to solve anything. Yet , strangely, I've never heard you post boo about Democrats, all you EVER do is mouth off about the right...

the democrats have healthcare reform and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

the right wing is simply useless.

Does a $15 minimum wage actually help anyone if prices on everything double as a result

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics. Even the dollar menu won't double.

 

[DandyDonovan]

I see.....

Congress is delegated Power to solve our problems not make excuses.

Then you must be thoroughly pissed at BOTH parties, because clearly neither side in Congress actually wants to solve anything. Yet , strangely, I've never heard you post boo about Democrats, all you EVER do is mouth off about the right...

the democrats have healthcare reform and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

the right wing is simply useless.

Does a $15 minimum wage actually help anyone if prices on everything double as a result

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics. Even the dollar menu won't double.

Can you either debate like an adult or get out of the CDZ please. NO serious person argues that doubling the minimum wage wouldn't increase prices exponentially.

 

[danielpalos]

Congress is delegated Power to solve our problems not make excuses.

Then you must be thoroughly pissed at BOTH parties, because clearly neither side in Congress actually wants to solve anything. Yet , strangely, I've never heard you post boo about Democrats, all you EVER do is mouth off about the right...

the democrats have healthcare reform and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

the right wing is simply useless.

Does a $15 minimum wage actually help anyone if prices on everything double as a result

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics. Even the dollar menu won't double.

Can you either debate like an adult or get out of the CDZ please. NO serious person argues that doubling the minimum wage wouldn't increase prices exponentially.

only the right wing, claims that.

nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Then you must be thoroughly pissed at BOTH parties, because clearly neither side in Congress actually wants to solve anything. Yet , strangely, I've never heard you post boo about Democrats, all you EVER do is mouth off about the right...

the democrats have healthcare reform and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

the right wing is simply useless.

Does a $15 minimum wage actually help anyone if prices on everything double as a result

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics. Even the dollar menu won't double.

Can you either debate like an adult or get out of the CDZ please. NO serious person argues that doubling the minimum wage wouldn't increase prices exponentially.

only the right wing, claims that.

nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics.

Facts PROVE that Daniel.

Prices rise as minimum wage increases in several states

It's just common sense, if you raise wages a $1 or $2 yes that can be absorbed by owners, but if you DOUBLE it, no that won't be absorbed, employers will raise prices, and if prices on everything increase well then eventually there is a tipping point where the very people you are trying to help are worse off than they were before.

It's a complex issue and you are a simple person. That's not an insult. Simply an observation.

 

[danielpalos]

the democrats have healthcare reform and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

the right wing is simply useless.

Does a $15 minimum wage actually help anyone if prices on everything double as a result

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics. Even the dollar menu won't double.

Can you either debate like an adult or get out of the CDZ please. NO serious person argues that doubling the minimum wage wouldn't increase prices exponentially.

only the right wing, claims that.

nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics.

Facts PROVE that Daniel.

Prices rise as minimum wage increases in several states

It's just common sense, if you raise wages a $1 or $2 yes that can be absorbed by owners, but if you DOUBLE it, no that won't be absorbed, employers will raise prices, and if prices on everything increase well then eventually there is a tipping point where the very people you are trying to help are worse off than they were before.

It's a complex issue and you are a simple person. That's not an insult. Simply an observation.

words matter. you are claiming exponential price increases instead of less than five percent price inflation.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Does a $15 minimum wage actually help anyone if prices on everything double as a result

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics. Even the dollar menu won't double.

Can you either debate like an adult or get out of the CDZ please. NO serious person argues that doubling the minimum wage wouldn't increase prices exponentially.

only the right wing, claims that.

nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics.

Facts PROVE that Daniel.

Prices rise as minimum wage increases in several states

It's just common sense, if you raise wages a $1 or $2 yes that can be absorbed by owners, but if you DOUBLE it, no that won't be absorbed, employers will raise prices, and if prices on everything increase well then eventually there is a tipping point where the very people you are trying to help are worse off than they were before.

It's a complex issue and you are a simple person. That's not an insult. Simply an observation.

words matter. you are claiming exponential price increases instead of less than five percent price inflation.

5% is a number you made up in your otherwise empty head. I don't know why I keep getting suckered into discussions with you. Have a nice day.

 

[DandyDonovan]

so no one wants to discuss the CEO of GM earning $20M a year, which is way beyond fair value for a CEO while firing employees and moving manufacturing jobs to Mexico and China as it related to income inequality?

 

[danielpalos]

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics. Even the dollar menu won't double.

Can you either debate like an adult or get out of the CDZ please. NO serious person argues that doubling the minimum wage wouldn't increase prices exponentially.

only the right wing, claims that.

nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics.

Facts PROVE that Daniel.

Prices rise as minimum wage increases in several states

It's just common sense, if you raise wages a $1 or $2 yes that can be absorbed by owners, but if you DOUBLE it, no that won't be absorbed, employers will raise prices, and if prices on everything increase well then eventually there is a tipping point where the very people you are trying to help are worse off than they were before.

It's a complex issue and you are a simple person. That's not an insult. Simply an observation.

words matter. you are claiming exponential price increases instead of less than five percent price inflation.

5% is a number you made up in your otherwise empty head. I don't know why I keep getting suckered into discussions with you. Have a nice day.

nothing but ad hominems? You made up your, imaginary number and claimed exponentiality.

 

[danielpalos]

so no one wants to discuss the CEO of GM earning $20M a year, which is way beyond fair value for a CEO while firing employees and moving manufacturing jobs to Mexico and China as it related to income inequality?

no; why have a problem with the poor when Rich could be paying for it.

 

[Meister]

so no one wants to discuss the CEO of GM earning $20M a year, which is way beyond fair value for a CEO while firing employees and moving manufacturing jobs to Mexico and China as it related to income inequality?

no; why have a problem with the poor when Rich could be paying for it.

We've thrown trillions of dollars at the poor and they're still poor.
We could take the wealth away from the rich to throw at the poor.
In the end there just won't be any rich, just poor.

 

[Dekster]

At-will employment has nothing to do with the natural rate of unemployment. It is because people are always quitting or getting fired and business going under.

Structural unemployment is an input to a natural rate of unemployment.

Structural unemployment is not a problem peculiar to at-will states.

a natural rate of unemployment?

Structural unemployment is far more complex and often has to do with a change in market or economic conditions. "At-will" employment has no effect on whether a soybean farm goes under due to trade wars or a typewriter repairman loses his business to the personal computer craze. Most states are at will states and the ones that aren't still suffer the same ills when economic shifts occur.

You miss the point completely.

What if Labor could quit and collect unemployment if their Firm is going to be bought by "corporate raiders, dismembered and sold, along with their corporate pensions".

Being able to be pro-active is a benefit under capitalism.

None of the things mentioned have nothing to do with at-will vs. implied contract states.

 

[Dekster]

Structural unemployment is not a problem peculiar to at-will states.

a natural rate of unemployment?

Structural unemployment is far more complex and often has to do with a change in market or economic conditions. "At-will" employment has no effect on whether a soybean farm goes under due to trade wars or a typewriter repairman loses his business to the personal computer craze. Most states are at will states and the ones that aren't still suffer the same ills when economic shifts occur.

You miss the point completely.

What if Labor could quit and collect unemployment if their Firm is going to be bought by "corporate raiders, dismembered and sold, along with their corporate pensions".

Being able to be pro-active is a benefit under capitalism.

None of the things mentioned have nothing to do with at-will vs. implied contract states.

only if you don't understand the concept.

I understand the concept. You are just a complete waste of time.

 

[danielpalos]

a natural rate of unemployment?

Structural unemployment is far more complex and often has to do with a change in market or economic conditions. "At-will" employment has no effect on whether a soybean farm goes under due to trade wars or a typewriter repairman loses his business to the personal computer craze. Most states are at will states and the ones that aren't still suffer the same ills when economic shifts occur.

You miss the point completely.

What if Labor could quit and collect unemployment if their Firm is going to be bought by "corporate raiders, dismembered and sold, along with their corporate pensions".

Being able to be pro-active is a benefit under capitalism.

None of the things mentioned have nothing to do with at-will vs. implied contract states.

only if you don't understand the concept.

I understand the concept. You are just a complete waste of time.

in right wing fantasy, you are Always right.

 

[Andylusion]

On a related note Tucker Carlson had a very interesting story last night about GM. I would like to know why the CEO of GM is making 4 times what the CEO of Toyota is making as the company is firing workers to improve profitability.

I'm not sure I'd care so much if GM hadn't just 10 years ago needed we the taxpayers to bail their asses out, but they did, and I do.

I believe in capitalism, but this is some bullshit.

That's the reason. CEOs are paid based on what they are able to accomplish.

Let me ask you.... say you want to invest your life savings into something to make more money. You invest $500K, and after 5 years, you end up with $550K. Well that sucks. How much are you going to pay that guy? Not much.

So you hire a new guy, and after 5 years, you end up $1 million. Is that guy who doubled your money, is he possibly worth paying more?

So the owners of GM went through a bad spell where GM had to declare bankruptcy. The CEO is making GM more profitable, when before it was bankrupt.

Is that worth paying a higher wage? Again, if you own stock in GM, yeah it is.

This is why you pay people more money.. they have better results.

The goal of GM isn't to employ lots of people, and go broke. They did that. The goal of GM is produce cars for a profit. If they have to close plants, and lay people off, in order to produce cars cars and make a profit, then that is what they do.

And a CEO that makes that happen, is worth paying a higher wage.

By the way, it's a bunch of union working people that benefit from this. The biggest stock holder in the company, is the UAW.

UAW trust sells $1.6B worth of GM stock

The Union still owns 100 Million shares in GM, and so the CEO making those shares more valuable, and higher dividend payments, benefits the UAW the most.

Additionally....

Whether GM gets a bailout or not, doesn't matter. If someone is so dumb that they give me money to pay for my car... that isn't going to change how I use that car. If I want a Corvette to go street racing, someone being stupid enough to pay for it, doesn't change how I'm going to act.

I'm not sure why people think "if government gives them money.... then....".... No. GM is going to do what is best for business, whether you give them government money or not. This is why YOU DO NOT GIVE COMPANIES BAILOUTS. Because whether you are stupid enough to bailout someone, doesn't change how they live.

This is why you see all these welfare people smoking, drinking, and living irresponsibly..... and then cry "If we give them welfare they should...."... NO, you just don't give them welfare.

Giving them money, doesn't change how they are going to act. You only have two options.... give them money or not. You don't get to dictate their lives.

So if GM needs to lay off a hundred workers, that is what they are going to do. You being stupid enough to bail them out, doesn't change this, or give you a right to dictate how they operate.

LASTLY......

One of the things that drives me a bit crazy about these articles is that they always come out when the company is doing well.

Have you ever wondered why they never complain about CEO pay when the company is doing poorly? There is a simple reason for this. 50% of the CEO pay is all just stock. Stock in GM. It's not cash. It's not as though, if the CEO was not given stock, that this would somehow free up money to pay employees. Or free up money to keep employees from being laid off. The amount of money GM has to pay employees stays the same whether the CEO gets this stock, or doesn't.

So why do they focus on CEO pay only when the company is doing good? Because if the company is doing poorly, the stock isn't worth as much, and CEO pay goes down.

Let's say that I'm the stock holders for a company, and I hire you to run our company as CEO. As part of the compensation package, I offer you 1,000,000 shares in the company every year, as part of your pay. The shares are worth $1. So you are earning $1 Million in company stock.

This is good thing. It means that you are unlikely to act recklessly to destroy the company, because most of your pay is company stock, and if you destroy the company, you'll lose most of your income.

But here's the kicker.... as you make wise choices that improve the profitability of the company, the stock will go up in value. If the value of the stock goes up $1, you still get the same 1 million in shares... but now those shares are worth $2 Million. So even though we have not increased your pay by even a penny, or by a single stock, the value of your compensations went up by a million dollars.

In 10 years, if the value of company stock goes up to $20, You will end up getting $20 Million a year in company stock.

But that increase in your pay, is directly because of your leadership in running the company well.

Why is this bad?

 

[danielpalos]

On a related note Tucker Carlson had a very interesting story last night about GM. I would like to know why the CEO of GM is making 4 times what the CEO of Toyota is making as the company is firing workers to improve profitability.

I'm not sure I'd care so much if GM hadn't just 10 years ago needed we the taxpayers to bail their asses out, but they did, and I do.

I believe in capitalism, but this is some bullshit.

That's the reason. CEOs are paid based on what they are able to accomplish.

Let me ask you.... say you want to invest your life savings into something to make more money. You invest $500K, and after 5 years, you end up with $550K. Well that sucks. How much are you going to pay that guy? Not much.

So you hire a new guy, and after 5 years, you end up $1 million. Is that guy who doubled your money, is he possibly worth paying more?

So the owners of GM went through a bad spell where GM had to declare bankruptcy. The CEO is making GM more profitable, when before it was bankrupt.

Is that worth paying a higher wage? Again, if you own stock in GM, yeah it is.

This is why you pay people more money.. they have better results.

The goal of GM isn't to employ lots of people, and go broke. They did that. The goal of GM is produce cars for a profit. If they have to close plants, and lay people off, in order to produce cars cars and make a profit, then that is what they do.

And a CEO that makes that happen, is worth paying a higher wage.

By the way, it's a bunch of union working people that benefit from this. The biggest stock holder in the company, is the UAW.

UAW trust sells $1.6B worth of GM stock

The Union still owns 100 Million shares in GM, and so the CEO making those shares more valuable, and higher dividend payments, benefits the UAW the most.

Additionally....

Whether GM gets a bailout or not, doesn't matter. If someone is so dumb that they give me money to pay for my car... that isn't going to change how I use that car. If I want a Corvette to go street racing, someone being stupid enough to pay for it, doesn't change how I'm going to act.

I'm not sure why people think "if government gives them money.... then....".... No. GM is going to do what is best for business, whether you give them government money or not. This is why YOU DO NOT GIVE COMPANIES BAILOUTS. Because whether you are stupid enough to bailout someone, doesn't change how they live.

This is why you see all these welfare people smoking, drinking, and living irresponsibly..... and then cry "If we give them welfare they should...."... NO, you just don't give them welfare.

Giving them money, doesn't change how they are going to act. You only have two options.... give them money or not. You don't get to dictate their lives.

So if GM needs to lay off a hundred workers, that is what they are going to do. You being stupid enough to bail them out, doesn't change this, or give you a right to dictate how they operate.

LASTLY......

One of the things that drives me a bit crazy about these articles is that they always come out when the company is doing well.

Have you ever wondered why they never complain about CEO pay when the company is doing poorly? There is a simple reason for this. 50% of the CEO pay is all just stock. Stock in GM. It's not cash. It's not as though, if the CEO was not given stock, that this would somehow free up money to pay employees. Or free up money to keep employees from being laid off. The amount of money GM has to pay employees stays the same whether the CEO gets this stock, or doesn't.

So why do they focus on CEO pay only when the company is doing good? Because if the company is doing poorly, the stock isn't worth as much, and CEO pay goes down.

Let's say that I'm the stock holders for a company, and I hire you to run our company as CEO. As part of the compensation package, I offer you 1,000,000 shares in the company every year, as part of your pay. The shares are worth $1. So you are earning $1 Million in company stock.

This is good thing. It means that you are unlikely to act recklessly to destroy the company, because most of your pay is company stock, and if you destroy the company, you'll lose most of your income.

But here's the kicker.... as you make wise choices that improve the profitability of the company, the stock will go up in value. If the value of the stock goes up $1, you still get the same 1 million in shares... but now those shares are worth $2 Million. So even though we have not increased your pay by even a penny, or by a single stock, the value of your compensations went up by a million dollars.

In 10 years, if the value of company stock goes up to $20, You will end up getting $20 Million a year in company stock.

But that increase in your pay, is directly because of your leadership in running the company well.

Why is this bad?

Corporate welfare that even paid multimillion dollar bonuses sort of ruins that perception.

 

[Gorgeous George]

I need money.

 

[grbb]

Just as Global Warming has been recast as a politically more saleable Climate Change, Poverty is now being recast as Income Inequality for the same purpose. With more people escaping poverty than ever before, it has become necessary to find new ways of pushing for a worldwide Socialist agenda.

What, exactly, is wrong with "income inequality?" It is popularly reported that a tiny percentage of people own a large percentage of the world's wealth, but so what? Much of that wealth is ownership of companies they started which have contributed immensely to the world's economy. Just who would be better off if Jeff Bezos didn't own all that Amazon stock?

Is income inequality really a problem in itself? Or is it just a way of appealing to people's baser emotions (e.g., envy) for political purposes?

Totally agree.

What worries me is some people having wealth without productivity. Kings, dictators, and majestic welfare parasites.

People earning money through building corporations are fine.

Perhaps if too much people will rebel. I am otherwise fine.