CDZ The Income Inequality Charade

[danielpalos]

a higher minimum wage pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

 

[Dekster]

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?

If you redistribute it, it just ends back in the same hands again. That is the problem with the scheme. Give everybody extra money and they are going to buy more stuff off amazon, etc.

 

[DandyDonovan]

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?

If you redistribute it, it just ends back in the same hands again. That is the problem with the scheme. Give everybody extra money and they are going to buy more stuff off amazon, etc.

I wouldn't call giving lower income people more money to spend a problem lol

Why is this such a black and white issue to so many ? It's not black and white at all.

Here is what we know

1. We tried not having any federal minimum wage in this country, it didn't work out
2. A large majority of people on welfare are full time workers who just don't earn enough to be beyond the welfare threshold
3. The minimum wage IS worth less than it was 10-30 years ago in terms of real dollars
4. There absolutely is a point at which too high of a min wage would simply cause unemployment and or higher prices that would offset the raise in the min wage
5. Minimum wage was not meant for "teenage workers just starting out" that wasn't its intent, but neither is it supposed to be able to support a family of four living beyond their means.

Now, why can't we take those 5 known facts and come to some agreement as to a reasonable minimum wage?

 

[Dekster]

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?

If you redistribute it, it just ends back in the same hands again. That is the problem with the scheme. Give everybody extra money and they are going to buy more stuff off amazon, etc.

I wouldn't call giving lower income people more money to spend a problem lol

Why is this such a black and white issue to so many ? It's not black and white at all.

Here is what we know

1. We tried not having any federal minimum wage in this country, it didn't work out
2. A large majority of people on welfare are full time workers who just don't earn enough to be beyond the welfare threshold
3. The minimum wage IS worth less than it was 10-30 years ago in terms of real dollars
4. There absolutely is a point at which too high of a min wage would simply cause unemployment and or higher prices that would offset the raise in the min wage
5. Minimum wage was not meant for "teenage workers just starting out" that wasn't its intent, but neither is it supposed to be able to support a family of four living beyond their means.

Now, why can't we take those 5 known facts and come to some agreement as to a reasonable minimum wage?

I don't care one way or the other about the MW as long as your "reasonable" is nowhere near the $15/hour mark, however, it wouldn't take a minimum wage increase to address the issue. You could just increase welfare and earned income tax credits.

 

[DandyDonovan]

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?

If you redistribute it, it just ends back in the same hands again. That is the problem with the scheme. Give everybody extra money and they are going to buy more stuff off amazon, etc.

I wouldn't call giving lower income people more money to spend a problem lol

Why is this such a black and white issue to so many ? It's not black and white at all.

Here is what we know

1. We tried not having any federal minimum wage in this country, it didn't work out
2. A large majority of people on welfare are full time workers who just don't earn enough to be beyond the welfare threshold
3. The minimum wage IS worth less than it was 10-30 years ago in terms of real dollars
4. There absolutely is a point at which too high of a min wage would simply cause unemployment and or higher prices that would offset the raise in the min wage
5. Minimum wage was not meant for "teenage workers just starting out" that wasn't its intent, but neither is it supposed to be able to support a family of four living beyond their means.

Now, why can't we take those 5 known facts and come to some agreement as to a reasonable minimum wage?

I don't care one way or the other about the MW as long as your "reasonable" is nowhere near the $15/hour mark, however, it wouldn't take a minimum wage increase to address the issue. You could just increase welfare and earned income tax credits.

See, I'd rather see the minimum wage go up and we get rid of crap like the earned income credit, why on Earth is the government rewarding people for having kids they can't afford? Seriously, what kind of stupid logic is that.

But leftists don't want to give up things like the EIC, they want higher min wage AND welfare. Conservatives want neither. So consequently , here we are..........

 

[Dekster]

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?

If you redistribute it, it just ends back in the same hands again. That is the problem with the scheme. Give everybody extra money and they are going to buy more stuff off amazon, etc.

I wouldn't call giving lower income people more money to spend a problem lol

Why is this such a black and white issue to so many ? It's not black and white at all.

Here is what we know

1. We tried not having any federal minimum wage in this country, it didn't work out
2. A large majority of people on welfare are full time workers who just don't earn enough to be beyond the welfare threshold
3. The minimum wage IS worth less than it was 10-30 years ago in terms of real dollars
4. There absolutely is a point at which too high of a min wage would simply cause unemployment and or higher prices that would offset the raise in the min wage
5. Minimum wage was not meant for "teenage workers just starting out" that wasn't its intent, but neither is it supposed to be able to support a family of four living beyond their means.

Now, why can't we take those 5 known facts and come to some agreement as to a reasonable minimum wage?

I don't care one way or the other about the MW as long as your "reasonable" is nowhere near the $15/hour mark, however, it wouldn't take a minimum wage increase to address the issue. You could just increase welfare and earned income tax credits.

See, I'd rather see the minimum wage go up and we get rid of crap like the earned income credit, why on Earth is the government rewarding people for having kids they can't afford? Seriously, what kind of stupid logic is that.

But leftists don't want to give up things like the EIC, they want higher min wage AND welfare. Conservatives want neither. So consequently , here we are..........

You know the EIC started off as a republican version of workfare don't you? Just one of those quirky things I discovered one day. I am not a fan of the program for a few reasons, but mostly because I see so many people wasting that money as quickly as they get it like it was a lottery prize. The fundamental problem with raising the minimum wage nationally right now by any significant amount is that America has a lot of economic deadzones that will be even deader with a minimum wage increase. If you go from $7.25 to $15, you are going to kill the economy. Sure you can go from $7.25 to say $8 and then a few years later go to $8.50 etc to give the markets more time to absorb and adjust. Only 4% of workers make the MW so push it too fast and you will see workers who make more than MW be pulled back down to MW. $9 is about an ok entry level wage in my area as is, so it isn't like that many people other than the burger flipping teens really make MW. One of my nephews told be yesterday he is starting off at $9.25 at his new job with no experience.

 

[DandyDonovan]

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?

If you redistribute it, it just ends back in the same hands again. That is the problem with the scheme. Give everybody extra money and they are going to buy more stuff off amazon, etc.

I wouldn't call giving lower income people more money to spend a problem lol

Why is this such a black and white issue to so many ? It's not black and white at all.

Here is what we know

1. We tried not having any federal minimum wage in this country, it didn't work out
2. A large majority of people on welfare are full time workers who just don't earn enough to be beyond the welfare threshold
3. The minimum wage IS worth less than it was 10-30 years ago in terms of real dollars
4. There absolutely is a point at which too high of a min wage would simply cause unemployment and or higher prices that would offset the raise in the min wage
5. Minimum wage was not meant for "teenage workers just starting out" that wasn't its intent, but neither is it supposed to be able to support a family of four living beyond their means.

Now, why can't we take those 5 known facts and come to some agreement as to a reasonable minimum wage?

I don't care one way or the other about the MW as long as your "reasonable" is nowhere near the $15/hour mark, however, it wouldn't take a minimum wage increase to address the issue. You could just increase welfare and earned income tax credits.

See, I'd rather see the minimum wage go up and we get rid of crap like the earned income credit, why on Earth is the government rewarding people for having kids they can't afford? Seriously, what kind of stupid logic is that.

But leftists don't want to give up things like the EIC, they want higher min wage AND welfare. Conservatives want neither. So consequently , here we are..........

You know the EIC started off as a republican version of workfare don't you? Just one of those quirky things I discovered one day. I am not a fan of the program for a few reasons, but mostly because I see so many people wasting that money as quickly as they get it like it was a lottery prize. The fundamental problem with raising the minimum wage nationally right now by any significant amount is that America has a lot of economic deadzones that will be even deader with a minimum wage increase. If you go from $7.25 to $15, you are going to kill the economy. Sure you can go from $7.25 to say $8 and then a few years later go to $8.50 etc to give the markets more time to absorb and adjust. Only 4% of workers make the MW so push it too fast and you will see workers who make more than MW be pulled back down to MW. $9 is about an ok entry level wage in my area as is, so it isn't like that many people other than the burger flipping teens really make MW. One of my nephews told be yesterday he is starting off at $9.25 at his new job with no experience.

I'm not talking about $15 an hour, go that high and you upset the equilibrium the other way around, but I believe the minimum wage should be placed back at say 1968 levels, that would be about $11 an hour.

We have to at some point look at this in an adult manner and say "look it's obvious that inflation has far outran wages over the last 30 years and yes if the companies won't rectify that themselves, then the government has a role to play"

There something wrong when a company who has 4 family members on the board who are on the list of 20 richest Americans is paying their average worker $9 an hour. I don't care how you look at it.

Then when you add in that these richest people are barely paying any taxes for the most part AND not being nearly as philanthropic as the rich people of the early industrial age were, you have a problem.

Take Jeff Bezos, for example. He's making $78.5M per year . Amazon has 613,300 employees, let's say 30% of them make $9 an hour or whatever and are thus on welfare. If Bezos were to give each of them a $2 an hour raise That's roughly $8M a year in added salary total. If ALL of that came directly out of Jeff Bezos's pocket , big deal that's like 10% of his yearly income. Meanwhile obviously if you increase someone from $9 an hour to $11 an hour you have increased THEIR income by an average of about $3200 a year.

Not only does this mean more money in the individual worker's pocket, it means less money coming out in the form of welfare because those people no longer qualify , AND it means more money paid in taxes each year.

And Amazon isn't the only guilty party here, just one of the worst.

This is the crux of the issue . Everyone sees it as black and white.

 

[Dekster]

If you redistribute it, it just ends back in the same hands again. That is the problem with the scheme. Give everybody extra money and they are going to buy more stuff off amazon, etc.

I wouldn't call giving lower income people more money to spend a problem lol

Why is this such a black and white issue to so many ? It's not black and white at all.

Here is what we know

1. We tried not having any federal minimum wage in this country, it didn't work out
2. A large majority of people on welfare are full time workers who just don't earn enough to be beyond the welfare threshold
3. The minimum wage IS worth less than it was 10-30 years ago in terms of real dollars
4. There absolutely is a point at which too high of a min wage would simply cause unemployment and or higher prices that would offset the raise in the min wage
5. Minimum wage was not meant for "teenage workers just starting out" that wasn't its intent, but neither is it supposed to be able to support a family of four living beyond their means.

Now, why can't we take those 5 known facts and come to some agreement as to a reasonable minimum wage?

I don't care one way or the other about the MW as long as your "reasonable" is nowhere near the $15/hour mark, however, it wouldn't take a minimum wage increase to address the issue. You could just increase welfare and earned income tax credits.

See, I'd rather see the minimum wage go up and we get rid of crap like the earned income credit, why on Earth is the government rewarding people for having kids they can't afford? Seriously, what kind of stupid logic is that.

But leftists don't want to give up things like the EIC, they want higher min wage AND welfare. Conservatives want neither. So consequently , here we are..........

You know the EIC started off as a republican version of workfare don't you? Just one of those quirky things I discovered one day. I am not a fan of the program for a few reasons, but mostly because I see so many people wasting that money as quickly as they get it like it was a lottery prize. The fundamental problem with raising the minimum wage nationally right now by any significant amount is that America has a lot of economic deadzones that will be even deader with a minimum wage increase. If you go from $7.25 to $15, you are going to kill the economy. Sure you can go from $7.25 to say $8 and then a few years later go to $8.50 etc to give the markets more time to absorb and adjust. Only 4% of workers make the MW so push it too fast and you will see workers who make more than MW be pulled back down to MW. $9 is about an ok entry level wage in my area as is, so it isn't like that many people other than the burger flipping teens really make MW. One of my nephews told be yesterday he is starting off at $9.25 at his new job with no experience.

I'm not talking about $15 an hour, go that high and you upset the equilibrium the other way around, but I believe the minimum wage should be placed back at say 1968 levels, that would be about $11 an hour.

We have to at some point look at this in an adult manner and say "look it's obvious that inflation has far outran wages over the last 30 years and yes if the companies won't rectify that themselves, then the government has a role to play"

There something wrong when a company who has 4 family members on the board who are on the list of 20 richest Americans is paying their average worker $9 an hour. I don't care how you look at it.

Then when you add in that these richest people are barely paying any taxes for the most part AND not being nearly as philanthropic as the rich people of the early industrial age were, you have a problem.

Take Jeff Bezos, for example. He's making $78.5M per year . Amazon has 613,300 employees, let's say 30% of them make $9 an hour or whatever and are thus on welfare. If Bezos were to give each of them a $2 an hour raise That's roughly $8M a year in added salary total. If ALL of that came directly out of Jeff Bezos's pocket , big deal that's like 10% of his yearly income. Meanwhile obviously if you increase someone from $9 an hour to $11 an hour you have increased THEIR income by an average of about $3200 a year.

Not only does this mean more money in the individual worker's pocket, it means less money coming out in the form of welfare because those people no longer qualify , AND it means more money paid in taxes each year.

And Amazon isn't the only guilty party here, just one of the worst.

This is the crux of the issue . Everyone sees it as black and white.

To be honest, you seem to be seeing it as black and white with you as the white and employers as the black. Stock values are not representative of profitability of the company. Walmart's net profit margin is very thin. Amazon never pays a dividend. The Walton's and Bezos are not loaded because they get billions in cash. They are loaded because other people want the same stocks. In the end, it is a lot easier say they are evil because their workers are on welfare, but they are the one willing to hire people already on welfare. A lot of the people who come in and stock at night have other jobs as well, This is just extra income.

 

[Natural Citizen]

What, exactly, is wrong with "income inequality?"

Stagflation.

The reason for it is the monetery policy.

Prior to 1971 the working class was doing great and the 1%ers were doing miserable.

After 1971, however, that all flipped and now the 1%ers are doing great while the working class is doing terrible.

 

[initforme]

The one percent RS have always done immeasuteably great here....the rest have struggled to get even slightly ahead. I've been alive for 84 years. It's always been this way.

 

[blackhawk]

The problem with the whole income inequality debate is it suggest everyone is equal in their skill set and therefore should be paid the same they are not. Crude example but since it's the Superbowl lets look at this Tom Brady and Josh Rosen of the Arizona Cardinals both play quarterback both run their teams offense both throw the ball but they are not paid anywhere near the same for the simple reason that Brady love him or hate him has proven himself to be one of the very best at that position Rosen has not shown he is at that level or close to it yet he might but your not going to pay like Brady till he does.

 

[Leo123]

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?

Equality of outcome is anti-American.

 

[Dekster]

The one percent RS have always done immeasuteably great here....the rest have struggled to get even slightly ahead. I've been alive for 84 years. It's always been this way.

Nothing really wrong with struggling. I mean I am sure it was a struggle for the doctors and lawyers to sit through all that extra schooling while their friends were out making money and having a grand old time.

 

[RandomPoster]

 

[DandyDonovan]

The problem with the whole income inequality debate is it suggest everyone is equal in their skill set and therefore should be paid the same they are not. Crude example but since it's the Superbowl lets look at this Tom Brady and Josh Rosen of the Arizona Cardinals both play quarterback both run their teams offense both throw the ball but they are not paid anywhere near the same for the simple reason that Brady love him or hate him has proven himself to be one of the very best at that position Rosen has not shown he is at that level or close to it yet he might but your not going to pay like Brady till he does.

I've been using that example all over the board. If there were 20 quarterbacks equal in skill to Tom Brady, Tom Brady would make much less money than he currently does.

It's a pretty simple concept.

 

[danielpalos]

It is about merely using capitalism for all of its capital worth in modern times.

Solving for the deleterious effects of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can improve the efficiency of our economy and nurture capitalism within fixed Standards enacted by Government.

 

[Dekster]

It is about merely using capitalism for all of its capital worth in modern times.

Solving for the deleterious effects of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can improve the efficiency of our economy and nurture capitalism within fixed Standards enacted by Government.

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.

 

[danielpalos]

It is about merely using capitalism for all of its capital worth in modern times.

Solving for the deleterious effects of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can improve the efficiency of our economy and nurture capitalism within fixed Standards enacted by Government.

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.

 

[Dekster]

It is about merely using capitalism for all of its capital worth in modern times.

Solving for the deleterious effects of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can improve the efficiency of our economy and nurture capitalism within fixed Standards enacted by Government.

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.

 

[airplanemechanic]

So you're OK with Trump's base's wages stagnating?

Because that's what's been happening the past decade.

So Trump is responsible for 10 years of wage stagnation when he's been in office for 2? Do you realize you just admitted wages were flat for the entire Obama presidency? Problem is, wages rose last year by over 3%. Finally. Get someone in office who know what he's doing and wages finally start ticking up.