CDZ Our Republic is Now a Rigged Casino Where the Wealthy Fleece the Worker and the Corrupt Make the Law

[JimBowie1958]

No, it is not a subjective opinion. Fairness is equality before the law coupled with equal opportunity. An y grade school kid knows this.

I have to disagree on this. Fairness can sometimes be assessed empirically; other times, it cannot. Depending on the context, fairness and justice, which around here seems as often as not what folks mean when they write "fairness," may not be the same things, and yet at times they are.

• What is the difference between justice and fairness? Which is more important?
  
• Fairness and Philosophy
  
• John Rawls' Justice as Fairness: Justice within a Liberal Society
• BBC News - Today - What is fairness?

[I presume you meant "grade school" not "grad school?" I adjusted your statement accordingly in this post.]

W hile there are multiple definitions on words depending on context, I think I used an appropriate meaning for the word 'fairness' here as we are not discussing appearance, skin tone, baseball or a myriad other topics in which a different definition would be more appropriate.

And you were right about 'grad school' of course, so thank you!

 

[JimBowie1958]

Why don't you tell us how you came up with your "objective" 80-20 formula?

I did not come up with it. It is a well known mathematical formula for results in normal competitive endeavors.

Pareto principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Pareto principle (also known as the 80–20 rule, the law of the vital few, and the principle of factor sparsity)[1] states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.[2] Management consultant Joseph M. Juran suggested the principle and named it after Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, who, while at the University of Lausanne in 1896, published his first paper "Cours d'économie politique." Essentially, Pareto showed that approximately 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population; Pareto developed the principle by observing that 20% of the peapods in his garden contained 80% of the peas.[3]

It is a common rule of thumb in business; e.g., "80% of your sales come from 20% of your clients." Mathematically, the 80–20 rule is roughly followed by a power law distribution (also known as a Pareto distribution) for a particular set of parameters, and many natural phenomena have been shown empirically to exhibit such a distribution.[4]

The Pareto principle is only tangentially related to Pareto efficiency. Pareto developed both concepts in the context of the distribution of income and wealth among the population.

 

[jwoodie]

Q. Why don't you tell us how you came up with your "objective" 80-20 formula?

A. I did not come up with it. It is a well known mathematical formula for results in normal competitive endeavors.

Pareto principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Pareto principle (also known as the 80–20 rule, the law of the vital few, and the principle of factor sparsity)[1] states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.[2] Management consultant Joseph M. Juran suggested the principle and named it after Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, who, while at the University of Lausanne in 1896, published his first paper "Cours d'économie politique." Essentially, Pareto showed that approximately 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population; Pareto developed the principle by observing that 20% of the peapods in his garden contained 80% of the peas.[3]


I didn't ask where you came up with it, but rather how you came up with it (as a measure of fairness). I doubt that Pareto found 80/20% land ownership in 1896 Italy to be the epitome of fairness. On the contrary, this unequal distribution of land in agrarian societies represented a basic unfairness that led to social and political upheaval.

Modern economies no longer reflect this "piece of the pie" concept. Wealth is not a fixed asset which requires that it be taken from someone else. Bill Gates may be a billionaire, but he didn't accumulate his wealth by stealing from his employees (many of whom became millionaires). 80/20 may be common in business and nature, but it is usually cited as something to be corrected, not emulated.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Q. Why don't you tell us how you came up with your "objective" 80-20 formula?

A. I did not come up with it. It is a well known mathematical formula for results in normal competitive endeavors.

Pareto principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Pareto principle (also known as the 80–20 rule, the law of the vital few, and the principle of factor sparsity)[1] states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.[2] Management consultant Joseph M. Juran suggested the principle and named it after Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, who, while at the University of Lausanne in 1896, published his first paper "Cours d'économie politique." Essentially, Pareto showed that approximately 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population; Pareto developed the principle by observing that 20% of the peapods in his garden contained 80% of the peas.[3]


I didn't ask where you came up with it, but rather how you came up with it (as a measure of fairness). I doubt that Pareto found 80/20% land ownership in 1896 Italy to be the epitome of fairness. On the contrary, this unequal distribution of land in agrarian societies represented a basic unfairness that led to social and political upheaval.

Modern economies no longer reflect this "piece of the pie" concept. Wealth is not a fixed asset which requires that it be taken from someone else. Bill Gates may be a billionaire, but he didn't accumulate his wealth by stealing from his employees (many of whom became millionaires). 80/20 may be common in business and nature, but it is usually cited as something to be corrected, not emulated.

Let us shift the example to something not so emotional for you.

Say we have some game on line where your gain 'game experience' that 'levels' your character up faster. And as you level up the character you accumulate more 'experience points'. After two years 80% of all the 'experience points' will be held by the top 20% of players. IF today you took a real life game, like say WarCraft and totaled all the experience points of all the characters of all the accounts owned by the same person, you would probably find that the top 20% of the players have 80% of the total experience points awarded.

Why is that? Because some people are more motivated to acquire certain things than others. For some it is wealth, for others it is popularity, for others it is saving lives, for others it is experience points in an online game. The bottom quintile consists of those who are barely enough interested to register or enter the endeavor, the next up consists of those who are involved, but are not motivated to excel at all. The mid quintile consists of those who want success but they balance it with other endeavors in their lives, like the church, family, and other relationships or hobbies. The next highest quintile consists of those who give this thing priority full time, but dont have the added gifts and resources of the top quintile.

Back to online gaming as an example. I know a guy who has 8 different accounts in the game 'Lord of the Rings Online' and he has characters in each account, all maxed out. He can play all 8 characters simultaneously, one from each account, as he has a keyboard that toggles from emulating different keyboards set up wirelessly to each computer he has that he uses in the game. He has topped out all his available character slots and had over a million gold. He was accumulating gold pieces to the point that the game management decided he had too much and they effectively confiscated it by banning the storage of these 'gold piece' items in the bank. This is an example of the top 1%. The guy is motivated to excel, is gifted mentally to be able to excel and has all the time in the world to engage in his obsession.

We have similar people when it comes to accumulating wealth, or property or classic Mustangs, etc.

This is 'normal' distribution given the different levels of motivation and capability of the people involved. This also suggests an optimization of freedom to pursue ones own happiness as one sees fit.

Where it is a useful principle is when it tells us how our actual effectiveness is in motivating and regulating fairness in our system. If we have an online game where no matter who plays they all end up within the same range of success as everyone else, then we have trouble with our game because we are demotivating people to play and not giving them the personal freedom enough to excel. If we have the top 10% controlling 99% of the games resources, or even worse if the top 1% of the players control that 99% then we have a game that will fall into nonparticipation because it is too easy for the no-lifers to completely dominate the game and make everyone else feel like they dont have a fair chance.

The latter is the problem we see in the USA today. Instead of the normal 20-80 distribution, we see a 5-63 ratio and a 20-88 ratio, which says the system is too inclined to favor those who have already accumulated wealth.

You seem to think that the results should all be equal, but that only happens in one kind of system; the one where everyone is a loser, a peasant or a temporary participant.

Am I wrong? What do you think should be the statistical distribution we see in any competitive endeavor?

 

[320 Years of History]

What do you think should be the statistical distribution we see in any competitive endeavor?

You two are marching down a path that calls for a really solid understanding of the science aspect of economics and a good understanding of statistics and math in general. Put another way, this is the level of understanding that I've often on USMB written about folks, seemingly by my read of their remarks, not having which in turn leads them to think they can argue for or against the summarizations, conclusions and predictions economists make (sometimes even at a far more basic level than this, which is admittedly (after the first link below) not "basic" at all) about what will or won't happen in response to "this or that" policy action.

I think you and the other member may find the following resources helpful and informative. The first four (first level) links provide the background content one needs to understand the principles connected with the matter of income inequality. The linked content after that are lay audience based discussions of the history of income inequality.

• Lorenz curve
• Gini Coefficient
• The Lorenz curve in economics and econometrics
  • The use of the Lorenz curve, Gini index and related measures of relative inequality and uniformity in securities law -- This reference is provided merely to illustrate one application of the Lorentz's principles to a real world policymaking matter.
• Kuznets Curve
  • Economic Development and the Gender Wage Gap -- This is an analysis of the validity of the Kuznets theory. That theory is a good deal newer than is Lorentz's principles and less well known by the lay population, so that's why I've included this paper. Also it's a slightly different approach to the matter of measuring and explaining income inequality.
  • The Political Economy of the Kuznets Curve -- This paper presents an application of Kuznets theory to politics.
    
  • The Environmental Kuznets Curve -- This document discusses the application of the Kuznets curve to environmental issues as they correlate to economics.
• Some are more equal than others
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• U.S. income inequality, on rise for decades, is now highest since 1928
  
  
  

As you can see from the information above, one can legitimately extrapolate economics principles to all manners of competitive situations where scarcity, choice and individual or group performance yields greater and lesser reward as a result of performance. As goes the application of that idea to the matter of income distribution among groups, I don't know that there is a precise or even right answer to the question you asked, @JimBowie for the answer to that question in particular depends on the value society places on the various productive activities that people perform.

In my observation, modern society has long assigned higher value to intellectual labor than to physical labor. I don't see that changing. Now what's essential to understand is that in this Information Age in which we find ourselves, the U.S. has, as I've stated many times, shifted from an economy where physical production, tangible things and processing/building and selling them, was that in which the U.S. had a competitive advantage to one wherein information -- processing it, applying it to solve problems and create new things that machines (things made possible by thought leadership not "build it" leadership) build things -- is the area in which the U.S. find its comparative advantage.

Why is that so critical to recognize and accept? Well, one need only look at what types of workers have seen their wages grow, and grow quite well, to know why. It's the wages of "knowledge workers" that have more than adequately grown over the past score of years. Ever wonder why movies about the future always depict a society comprised of people who basically don't "get dirty" doing their work? The transition from physical to intellectual labor is one that's long been understood as the natural progression in the presence of ever more capable technology.

Sure some physical laborers, notably in "white collar" fields, have managed to keep pace, but make no mistake, their days are numbered, although perhaps not as much as nor as soon to pass as have those of the rote labor factory worker. What so-called white collar laborer am I speaking of? Surgeons. The only reason they remain very well paid is because robotics and automation hasn't reached the point whereby the surgeon's job can be performed as depicted in science fiction movies and novels. But make no mistake, that day will come, sooner for less intricate types of surgery than for for others, but come it will. In time, all human labor will be more akin to the envisioning and execution an artist performs than that which accountants and surgeons perform.

Sidebar:

For the "peanut gallery," I'm not suggesting that surgery will occur absent human participation. I'm saying the human participation needed to perform it will be far less than it is now, which is exactly what we observe with the production of goods in factories. Surgeon salaries may, however, remain high simply because they "do their thing" on humans and human life/health will (hopefully) always have a high value.)​

End of sidebar.

So in trying to answer the question you asked, I can't say what should be the statistical distribution of wealth. I can see that the inequality we observe now will ameliorate as more and more "regular folks" act to become part of the new economy, but for now, it may well be that the distribution we observe is exactly as it should be given the point we are at in the economic transition, people's natural (albeit irrational) resistance to change, and so on. I know it doesn't feel ethically "right," but from an economic progression standpoint, it may yet be precisely what is expected.

Given that as my response, I think there are other questions, the answers to which one must ponder (carefully, which is to say not in binary thinking mode that is the preferred approach of most folks):

• What is the world going to do with all these people that occupy it? Is all that "grey matter" going to be put to good use somehow? If so how? I don't have a definitive answer to that, only suppositions, but I do know that if we don't plan for that eventuality, it'll be calamity when the time arrives. Perhaps moving humanity to "the next level" whereby we conquer space flight and colonize new worlds, in turn giving folks and society a reason to have the physical labor capacity it does?
• Will the problems alluded to in the prior bullet be solved peacefully or will it take war on such a scale that it literally culls the human species? Again, I don't know. I merely can see that there are two basic ways "things" can go. Both will "get the job done," but one is clearly more gruesome than the other, and that the less gruesome approach will require the masses to "get on board with program" rather than fighting it and pining for what won't, barring great disaster, be again.

 

[there4eyeM]

Most human economic activity historically has been related to a kind of 'war for survival'. A person, a family, a group, a nation had to do whatever it could to assure continuation. What has happened in modern times is that this war against the vicissitudes of nature has been won. We have the means to produce enough for all, we know where surplus and dearth are and we have the transportation capacity to shift necessities where needed. These conditions have never existed before.
Therefore, we need a new model for harmonious co-existence. Unfortunately, our thinking is polluted by the habits and vocabulary of the 'bad old days'. If we do not break out of these confines, the future is dark.

 

[Toro]

For most of this country's history, it didn't work for the majority of the people. Women were shut out of the process until the 1920s. Minorities effectively didn't have full legal status in much of the country until the 1960s.

"Corruption" has always been part of the system, whether it's overt corruption like Teapot Dome, or covert corruption like the lobbying system in DC. It's always been like this.

That doesn't mean the country doesn't have problems. It does. But people have a tendency to internalize their own situation into a broader context, and conclude that their situation is "the worst this" or "the best that" or "the country is falling apart."

It should be noted that generally, the younger and the more educated are more optimistic about the country's future. Neither are a surprise. Old people are prone to nostalgia, pining for a mythic past, particularly in difficult times. The more educated have been the biggest beneficiaries of society over the past 50 years. This isn't going to change.

The forces that are creating inequality are going to continue. More and more of society's wealth will continue to accrue to the top. Technology is the primary driver of this, not globalization, though globalization may hasten this trend.

 

[JimBowie1958]

What do you think should be the statistical distribution we see in any competitive endeavor?

You two are marching down a path that calls for a really solid understanding of the science aspect of economics and a good understanding of statistics and math in general. Put another way, this is the level of understanding that I've often on USMB written about folks, seemingly by my read of their remarks, not having which in turn leads them to think they can argue for or against the summarizations, conclusions and predictions economists make (sometimes even at a far more basic level than this, which is admittedly (after the first link below) not "basic" at all) about what will or won't happen in response to "this or that" policy action.

I think you and the other member may find the following resources helpful and informative. The first four (first level) links provide the background content one needs to understand the principles connected with the matter of income inequality. The linked content after that are lay audience based discussions of the history of income inequality.

• Lorenz curve
• Gini Coefficient
• The Lorenz curve in economics and econometrics
  • The use of the Lorenz curve, Gini index and related measures of relative inequality and uniformity in securities law -- This reference is provided merely to illustrate one application of the Lorentz's principles to a real world policymaking matter.
• Kuznets Curve
  • Economic Development and the Gender Wage Gap -- This is an analysis of the validity of the Kuznets theory. That theory is a good deal newer than is Lorentz's principles and less well known by the lay population, so that's why I've included this paper. Also it's a slightly different approach to the matter of measuring and explaining income inequality.
  • The Political Economy of the Kuznets Curve -- This paper presents an application of Kuznets theory to politics.
    
  • The Environmental Kuznets Curve -- This document discusses the application of the Kuznets curve to environmental issues as they correlate to economics.
• Some are more equal than others
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• U.S. income inequality, on rise for decades, is now highest since 1928
  
  
  

As you can see from the information above, one can legitimately extrapolate economics principles to all manners of competitive situations where scarcity, choice and individual or group performance yields greater and lesser reward as a result of performance. As goes the application of that idea to the matter of income distribution among groups, I don't know that there is a precise or even right answer to the question you asked, @JimBowie for the answer to that question in particular depends on the value society places on the various productive activities that people perform.

In my observation, modern society has long assigned higher value to intellectual labor than to physical labor. I don't see that changing. Now what's essential to understand is that in this Information Age in which we find ourselves, the U.S. has, as I've stated many times, shifted from an economy where physical production, tangible things and processing/building and selling them, was that in which the U.S. had a competitive advantage to one wherein information -- processing it, applying it to solve problems and create new things that machines (things made possible by thought leadership not "build it" leadership) build things -- is the area in which the U.S. find its comparative advantage.

Why is that so critical to recognize and accept? Well, one need only look at what types of workers have seen their wages grow, and grow quite well, to know why. It's the wages of "knowledge workers" that have more than adequately grown over the past score of years. Ever wonder why movies about the future always depict a society comprised of people who basically don't "get dirty" doing their work? The transition from physical to intellectual labor is one that's long been understood as the natural progression in the presence of ever more capable technology.

Sure some physical laborers, notably in "white collar" fields, have managed to keep pace, but make no mistake, their days are numbered, although perhaps not as much as nor as soon to pass as have those of the rote labor factory worker. What so-called white collar laborer am I speaking of? Surgeons. The only reason they remain very well paid is because robotics and automation hasn't reached the point whereby the surgeon's job can be performed as depicted in science fiction movies and novels. But make no mistake, that day will come, sooner for less intricate types of surgery than for for others, but come it will. In time, all human labor will be more akin to the envisioning and execution an artist performs than that which accountants and surgeons perform.

Sidebar:

For the "peanut gallery," I'm not suggesting that surgery will occur absent human participation. I'm saying the human participation needed to perform it will be far less than it is now, which is exactly what we observe with the production of goods in factories. Surgeon salaries may, however, remain high simply because they "do their thing" on humans and human life/health will (hopefully) always have a high value.)​

End of sidebar.

So in trying to answer the question you asked, I can't say what should be the statistical distribution of wealth. I can see that the inequality we observe now will ameliorate as more and more "regular folks" act to become part of the new economy, but for now, it may well be that the distribution we observe is exactly as it should be given the point we are at in the economic transition, people's natural (albeit irrational) resistance to change, and so on. I know it doesn't feel ethically "right," but from an economic progression standpoint, it may yet be precisely what is expected.

Given that as my response, I think there are other questions, the answers to which one must ponder (carefully, which is to say not in binary thinking mode that is the preferred approach of most folks):

• What is the world going to do with all these people that occupy it? Is all that "grey matter" going to be put to good use somehow? If so how? I don't have a definitive answer to that, only suppositions, but I do know that if we don't plan for that eventuality, it'll be calamity when the time arrives. Perhaps moving humanity to "the next level" whereby we conquer space flight and colonize new worlds, in turn giving folks and society a reason to have the physical labor capacity it does?
• Will the problems alluded to in the prior bullet be solved peacefully or will it take war on such a scale that it literally culls the human species? Again, I don't know. I merely can see that there are two basic ways "things" can go. Both will "get the job done," but one is clearly more gruesome than the other, and that the less gruesome approach will require the masses to "get on board with program" rather than fighting it and pining for what won't, barring great disaster, be again.

That is a great post, 320, and while I disagree with some of the conclusions you draw from it, it was a thickly informational post that will require some time to chew.

You stated, "Well, one need only look at what types of workers have seen their wages grow, and grow quite well, to know why. It's the wages of "knowledge workers" that have more than adequately grown over the past score of years.

Sure some physical laborers, notably in "white collar" fields, have managed to keep pace, but make no mistake, their days are numbered, although perhaps not as much as nor as soon to pass as have those of the rote labor factory worker. What so-called white collar laborer am I speaking of? Surgeons. The only reason they remain very well paid is because robotics and automation hasn't reached the point whereby the surgeon's job can be performed as depicted in science fiction movies and novels. But make no mistake, that day will come, sooner for less intricate types of surgery than for for others, but come it will. In time, all human labor will be more akin to the envisioning and execution an artist performs than that which accountants and surgeons perform."

Robotics and other forms of automation will eventually absorb all the upper tier skill sets and the only thing that will remain for people are the low skilled jobs that it just doesnt justify buying a robot to do. In fact, robot rental will be a good job area, where peopel build and maintain their own robots and reprogram them for specific jobs. But most of us will be sweeping parking lots and cleaning toilets unless something changes.

What I am hoping changes is that we are able to break the corporate monopolies and be able to use the new technology to make 99% of our own consumables and provide for our own needs as small collectives of people, probably based around churches and maybe lodges. People making things and then contributing them to their church and the church providing them with things as they need them will be perfect communism, without the Marxist ideology encrusted on top of it, and much more like the early church communities of the book of Acts. I think that is how the majority of people will survive in our coming Brave New World. The problem with that view is that so many people think of success in terms of a career and jobs, but it will shift to that of having manual skill sets and being able to hook into a community to provide for them. Corporations will try to prevent and suppress free tech, but they will lose as their own incomes shrink along with the consumer markets.

Of course all this will collapse all incomes and the government will have to shift more toward taxing assets, but with the churches a tax sheltered charitable organization, tax revenues will collapse as will traffic fine revenues. We are looking at the long twilight of our government unless they shift the tax base onto corporations and off of Middle Class people and even that wont last for very long.

In any event, the government has to understand that their revenues fall along with our incomes, and yet they are doing NADA to protect American jobs because their corporate masters demand it.

What is the world going to do with all these people that occupy it? Is all that "grey matter" going to be put to good use somehow? If so how? I don't have a definitive answer to that, only suppositions, but I do know that if we don't plan for that eventuality, it'll be calamity when the time arrives. Perhaps moving humanity to "the next level" whereby we conquer space flight and colonize new worlds, in turn giving folks and society a reason to have the physical labor capacity it does?

I think that people will be working for free mostly on the internet, donating their work for anyone to use as a form of barter. The most valuable objects by 2050 will be the 3D schematics of objects that will be 3D printable. While jobs will shrink slowly at first we will eventually see it hit a collective wall at around 15%, which is pretty much a wild guess based on what I have read of the private markets available in slave societies with robots being the equivalent of slaves. Some will push robot rights to reduce this some but it is a false narrative and wont work.

And the world is not going to do a damned thing 'with us.' We will survive as best we can, the decision that the elites need to make is what will be the manner in which people survive? Will we have some productive facet to the new economy or will we have to engage in crime and terrorism to sustain ourselves? Kidnapping for ransom could be a growth industry in twenty years.

While space exploration offers some help in terms of cheaper commodities, 99.999% of it will be robotic and the vast majority of mankind will always remain on Earth as it is where we evolved and are adapted to.


Will the problems alluded to in the prior bullet be solved peacefully or will it take war on such a scale that it literally culls the human species? Again, I don't know. I merely can see that there are two basic ways "things" can go. Both will "get the job done," but one is clearly more gruesome than the other, and that the less gruesome approach will require the masses to "get on board with program" rather than fighting it and pining for what won't, barring great disaster, be again.

I know it can go well or go disastrously depending on how much freedom we give people to have a fair recourse to available resources and freeware.

And our governments are about to become a very minor aspect of peoples lives if they let the Middle Class drown in the coming changes.

 

[jwoodie]

You seem to think that the results should all be equal, but that only happens in one kind of system; the one where everyone is a loser, a peasant or a temporary participant.

Am I wrong? What do you think should be the statistical distribution we see in any competitive endeavor?

No, I do not think that the results should all be equal, nor do I subscribe to any other predetermined distribution of wealth. (However, I do believe that our tax system is skewed in favor of protecting wealth rather than gaining wealth.)

You might get a better idea of what I think if you simply read my posts instead of trying to project some of your own issues on me.

 

[JimBowie1958]

No, I do not think that the results should all be equal, nor do I subscribe to any other predetermined distribution of wealth. (However, I do believe that our tax system is skewed in favor of protecting wealth rather than gaining wealth.)

You might get a better idea of what I think if you simply read my posts instead of trying to project some of your own issues on me.

I was not projecting anything on you. That was the point to asking you a question about what you thought.

If you dont care to show your hand, then fine, but consider this conversation over with if so.

Conversation is give and take, question and answer.

If only one person does the asking and the other the answering, that is called 'answering to' someone, and I dont answer to you.

 

[jwoodie]

No, I do not think that the results should all be equal, nor do I subscribe to any other predetermined distribution of wealth. (However, I do believe that our tax system is skewed in favor of protecting wealth rather than gaining wealth.)

You might get a better idea of what I think if you simply read my posts instead of trying to project some of your own issues on me.

I was not projecting anything on you. That was the point to asking you a question about what you thought.

Let us shift the example to something not so emotional for you.

If you dont care to show your hand, then fine, but consider this conversation over with if so.

Did you read my post?

Conversation is give and take, question and answer.

Do YOU have any questions?

If only one person does the asking and the other the answering, that is called 'answering to' someone, and I dont answer to you.

Answering a question is different than "answering to" someone. Look it up.

 

[JimBowie1958]

No, I do not think that the results should all be equal, nor do I subscribe to any other predetermined distribution of wealth. (However, I do believe that our tax system is skewed in favor of protecting wealth rather than gaining wealth.)

You might get a better idea of what I think if you simply read my posts instead of trying to project some of your own issues on me.

I was not projecting anything on you. That was the point to asking you a question about what you thought.

Let us shift the example to something not so emotional for you.

If you dont care to show your hand, then fine, but consider this conversation over with if so.

Did you read my post?

Conversation is give and take, question and answer.

Do YOU have any questions?

If only one person does the asking and the other the answering, that is called 'answering to' someone, and I dont answer to you.

Answering a question is different than "answering to" someone. Look it up.

That is not what I said, dude.

This conversation between you and I is now over. I dont have time to waste on people who are not discussing a topic in good faith.

Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[320 Years of History]

 

[JimBowie1958]

[.....]

I think you pointed out that the 1970 minimum wage of $3.50 is now the equivalent of $20 an hour?

So even $15 an hour is losing ground.

Lol, the dude says that 2 cents an hour is not absurd? roflmao, Epstein is an ideological idiot who cannot distinguish between crony capitalism and innovation, lol.

Walmart making an extra $10 billion annually by driving their lowest tier workers wages down to a level that requires them to draw welfare from the government and drain tax funds. In effect, Walmart is able to give substandard wages is because the tax payers assist Walmart in paying their lowest tier workers through our public assistance programs.

A Universal Basic Income would remove the need for all these programs.

 

[jwoodie]

Carving up the Golden Goose one slice at a time...

 

[320 Years of History]

So even $15 an hour is losing ground.

Faulty Comparison

I wasn't aware there's an inherent assumption or expectation that working at a minimum wage paying job does or should equate to earning a middle class wage or affording a middle class lifestyle. I don't recall anyone in the 1970s or before or since asserting that a minimum wage job should be enough to be amid the mainstream, or even bottom rung, of middle classness. Do you have any legitimate evidence indicating we/one should equate earning minimum wage with earning a middle class wage?

 

[Picaro]

It has been a long time since we had anyone in Washington to represent the people!

Oh, they do represent the people; that's who is electing them, and they indeed reflect current values to a T. It's just that nobody wants to admit it, that's all. they're only interested in bashing 'the other guy's corruption', not their own.

Both parties conti8nue to make it harder and harder for just anyone to run for president.

That isn't a bad idea, really; it's not like the public even bothers to find out what just the two main offerings actually have done or plan to do, much less will they bother with 6 or a dozen more.

This goes against what the founding fathers had for this country!

Actually Hamilton's wing of the Federalists believed in total corruption as the only acceptable form of government. They weren't all in lockstep, and almost none of them believed in universal representation and suffrage.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Our Republic is Now a Rigged Casino Where the Wealthy Fleece the Worker and the Corrupt Make the Law"

No, it’s not.

 

[Picaro]

[.....]

I think you pointed out that the 1970 minimum wage of $3.50 is now the equivalent of $20 an hour?

The minimum wage didn't top $3.35 an hour until 1990, but the general point is still a valid one.

Minimum Wage - U.S. Department of Labor - Chart1

And the Peanut Gallery should just ignore the ludicrous '2012 dollars' column; the Feds routinely lie their asses off deliberately underestimating inflation, which is why most foreign central banks calculate their own and ignore the Fed's ridiculous lying.

So even $15 an hour is losing ground.

Yes; between $20-$22 an hour is more in line with real inflation.

A Universal Basic Income would remove the need for all these programs.

Milton Friedman used to publish his estimates annually on what the minimum income would have to be; the last I can recall he was estimating around $43,000 a year, something along there, which is close to a $20 something minimum wage for a full time job.

At $20, that would be $41,600 a year. And, we've had inflation since his last estimate as well.